Soviet citizens also didn't have the choice to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Printable View
Soviet citizens also didn't have the choice to leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Is all the "fuck you"ing really necessary?
I do have to add my voice to the pit and ask what your view on this actually is. This is a court case, not some Republican initiative. In fact, it probably goes against the values of many elements in the Republican and Democratic party. So party affiliation doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Yet it's an interesting dilemma of when can you refuse entry to a police officer. I know someone who had an issue with this about a year ago. And I would be happy to discuss it, but how the hell is anyone supposed to respond to a post like this?
I expect most Republicans aren't happy/won't be happy with this ruling. Yes, they tend to be supportive of police action and plenty aren't fond of lots of defense technicalities etc, but they're also really fond of defense of self and home, remember. Even if their lawyers can get them out of things, they're going to be hostile to the idea that they can't defend themselves or their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I'd have to say that the very fact you are able to post this on a message board, via the internet, without someone, either a regular citizen, or some representative of the government coming to murder or maim you for doing so is probably an indicator that they are doing something to ensure your individuals rights are not inhibited. This at least leads me to believe that "seems to do very little" actually means "not doing as much as I want them to".Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
People have a right to not be harmed by other private citizens?
Our government and quite a few others seem to think so, because if I were to punch you in the face for asking this question you could, if you wanted, have a police officer arrest me for assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think you need to read up on what a "right" means.
I actually think you need to, as it would benefit you far more. People can have their "rights" infringed by private citizens. Governments were created to ensure this does not occur. For instance if someone were to strangle you to death, they would be infringing your natural right to life, and the government would ensure that this right was defended via an already existing law making it illegal to kill someone. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If I'm wrong, you're free to outline how so instead of quipping that I am, because I could read a thousand books on "Rights" from philosophies on such to legal texts, and this still would not tell me why you think I'm in error. Which I guess is one way to do it, because if you did outline this, other people could claim you are in error, and we couldn't have Loki being wrong now could we?
What it really does is tells me you have a very high threshold for what constitutes an infringement on an individual's rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I'm also under no illusions that it is very likely that this, and other online traffic is being searched, analyzed, cataloged, and archived by the intelligence apparatus within this country.
But sure, because I wasn't dragged out of my home and summarily executed in the street the government must be in the business of putting the individual's rights first.
What a crazy question. Isn't this the ultimate basis for government? The government implements a framework of laws to keep individuals from harming each other in one way or another, be it through violence, theft, or dishonest/unfair business practices - and all manner of other things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
To Nessus: Don't fret over the erosion of Freedom in the US (and eventually everywhere else). The truth is this is a necessity; Human Civilization cannot survive long into the future without government having much more control over the lives of individuals. The loss of Freedom = species survival. Sooner than later, in a best case scenario, all of human society will more resemble China's socio-economic model than Western Democracy's. Think of it as Niven's benevolent dictatorship in A World Out of Time. The quality of life for the individual depends on the quality of the dictatorial leadership - and yes, history is not encouraging on this point. Probably a broad, diverse leadership 'council' or 'team' that makes decisions collectively with, hopefully, some level of wisdom and compassion is the best hope for a long term future that maximizes the ability for the individual to thrive and the species to survive.
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
the majority of women are probably not overly victimised any more than you or Loki are (although it's possible we're all victims of tyrannical governments). I hear there's another group of women, however, known as the "minority" of women. Hmm this may be a good way to mitigate some of the tax-extortioning seatbelt-mandating torture to which the state subjects them.
I take it subjectivity isn't your thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Google Ads? Nefarious!Quote:
I'm also under no illusions that it is very likely that this, and other online traffic is being searched, analyzed, cataloged, and archived by the intelligence apparatus within this country.
It tells us they aren't in the business of stomping people into the ground on every occasion where someone criticizes the government, and will try to make sure others don't harm you for doing so either.Quote:
But sure, because I wasn't dragged out of my home and summarily executed in the street the government must be in the business of putting the individual's rights first.
I disagree. Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota show what happens when state or local laws are written to skirt federal 'protections', for availability and access to birth control or abortion. They use phrases like 'property rights' or 'state rights' to deny abortion clinics rental leases, or a business license for their own property, by manipulating zoning codes. The state/city runs women's clinics out of town, leaving only PP to service growing regions and numbers of women. Yes, doing that directly impacts womens' access to health services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
No, I said your Right to buy/own/carry a firearm is protected by the government, but it's also a Privilege you can lose, and comes with registration guidelines and regulations. In most states using deadly force if/when needed to protect our homes is also a protected Right. Indiana apparently wants to allow illegal police forced-entry our homes, and people can't legally defend themselves. That gives too much power to the state legislators and to state police forces. Are we agreed on that?Quote:
So? Rights only extend to that which you are born with? Speech, property, and the franchise need not apply? In fact just because I'm born with a pair of testicles doesn't mean I have a right to a vasectomy bought and paid for on the tax payers dime.
Women have a Right to control their bodies and reproduction, to plan families and use legal birth control. Too bad if some groups morally object to abortion---it's a legally protected method of birth control. BC is not considered a Privilege for only the wealthy or well-connected, but parenthood is---and can be revoked if abused or misused. Indiana apparently wants to allow anti-abortion and pro-life groups control legislation, in such a way that all other BC is limited or prohibitive. That gives too much power to the state legislators and the morality police. Would you agree or disagree?
(Your vasectomy example doesn't work because that's sterilization, not temporary 'sperm management'. As for the tax payers' dime, why wouldn't you 'approve' of Medicaid men having a subsidized voluntary vasectomy, if it helps them live a better quality of life, lifts them out of poverty, lessens the need for abortions, and reduces exponential Medicaid/welfare dependent children?)
As Chinese society buckles at the seams, I can't tell if it's delightfully incorrect or just plain disturbing that you actually hold this view.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
If Google is doing it, I can't help but wonder how much better the wunderkind at the NSA are able to do so with all your network traffic, taken directly from the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
If you can criticize the government without being stomped into the ground, then it is impossible for the government to be infringing your rights as a private citizen? Is that right?Quote:
It tells us they aren't in the business of stomping people into the ground on every occasion where someone criticizes the government, and will try to make sure others don't harm you for doing so either.
I think I'll stand by my statement that you have an extremely high tolerance for abuse.
I'm sure you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is always guaranteed to be available. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on Planned Parenthood continuing to operate. Not signing over a check for something is not the same as making it illegal, regardless of how many times you imply it is.Quote:
Women have a Right to control their bodies and reproduction, to plan families and use legal birth control. Too bad if some groups morally object to abortion---it's a legally protected method of birth control. BC is not considered a Privilege for only the wealthy or well-connected, but parenthood is---and can be revoked if abused or misused. Indiana apparently wants to allow anti-abortion and pro-life groups control legislation, in such a way that all other BC is limited or prohibitive. That gives too much power to the state legislators and the morality police. Would you agree or disagree?
My example doesn't work because it doesn't meet arbitrary standards that you have just now set? I'm positively shocked.Quote:
(Your vasectomy example doesn't work because that's sterilization, not temporary 'sperm management'. As for the tax payers' dime, why wouldn't you 'approve' of Medicaid men having a subsidized voluntary vasectomy, if it helps them live a better quality of life, lifts them out of poverty, lessens the need for abortions, and reduces exponential Medicaid/welfare dependent children?)
And of course I don't support subsidizing elective procedures on the tax payers dime. If breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks help lift poor, impoverished women out of poverty, lessen the need for welfare, and exponentially increases tax revenues for the future, should we fund them?
Is Nessus going to actually express a clear opinion on this issue? :bulb:
Difference being when laws are used to purposely disrupt their services, to the detriment of women's health. PP would still operate, but cutting off their federal or state funds will really impact women's health. Don't underestimate how expensive health care is, the millions uninsured, and they can cut costs because they're non-profit. Remember, those federal funds do NOT go toward abortion services, but family planning and birth control. What a stupid, short-sighted thing to cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
You're the one who brought up vasectomies. I'd be fine with PP offering male "services" like vasectomies or hormonal injections, as part of Family Planning.Quote:
My example doesn't work because it doesn't meet arbitrary standards that you have just now set? I'm positively shocked.
Wow, you're really comparing cosmetic surgery with reproductive procedures, and they're all done on the tax payer's dime because they're elective? False. Even circumcisions aren't covered by Medicaid.Quote:
And of course I don't support subsidizing elective procedures on the tax payers dime. If breast implants, face lifts, and tummy tucks help lift poor, impoverished women out of poverty, lessen the need for welfare, and exponentially increases tax revenues for the future, should we fund them?
<edit: Just realized you didn't answer if you agreed with the other paragraph, regarding too much power in the hands of legislators and police forces. Why did you ignore that part, since it segues with the second part? >
First problem, this isn't federal funding. There might very well be stipulations in the Indiana code about what the funding can be used for, but I have a feeling it wouldn't matter, as this is simply you muddying the waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Second problem, is that it's like I said before, (and you failed to address then) you are trying to have it both ways. If these funds do not go toward providing abortions then I can't see how you can possibly be arguing that Indiana is limiting access to abortion.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood hasn't gone out of business and closed up shop in Indiana, it has been receiving support from private donations. Funny how that works, isn't it?
You seem to believe that various private organizations and groups have a right to uninterrupted public funding, regardless of the reason. Why is that?
There you have it! We agree! The only thing I don't agree with is PP getting funding from the state, local, or federal governments.Quote:
You're the one who brought up vasectomies. I'd be fine with PP offering male "services" like vasectomies or hormonal injections, as part of Family Planning.
You are arguing that the ends justify the means. I'm trying to get you to see how impossibly stupid that argument is.Quote:
Wow, you're really comparing cosmetic surgery with reproductive procedures, and they're all done on the tax payer's dime because they're elective? False. Even circumcisions aren't covered by Medicaid.
I agree with precious little you write. I didn't comment on it because it is a non sequitur. Stream of consciousness posting may be a rewarding way to write for you, but it doesn't necessarily make for clear or well reasoned posts. You are trying to create a chain of causality between legislators allowing police to enter a residence for any reason, right or wrong, and the state government destroying reproductive rights because it doesn't fund a private organization. No such link exists, nor can it exist. Simply eliminating funding for something does not make it illegal, or even inaccessible. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is not the be all end all when it comes to reproductive health and services.Quote:
<edit: Just realized you didn't answer if you agreed with the other paragraph, regarding too much power in the hands of legislators and police forces. Why did you ignore that part, since it segues with the second part? >
If the government cut funding to NPR, would it be destroying our first amendment rights?
You "have a feeling" none of this matters? Seems to me you're inserting your bias into what I've written, and that's what is muddying the waters. These things DO work both ways you know---private non-profit health care providers DO rely on a portion of government (tax payer) dollars. Indiana has decided to reject federal funds, so they can restrict their state funds. The same type of tactic is being considered for Medicaid (see Texas).Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm not arguing that Indiana is limiting access to abortion. That's patently obvious. What you're missing is how defunding PP (on the misguided "goal" of limiting access to abortion) will hurt women needing pregnancy prevention methods, education, and Family Planning. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
You seem to believe women's reproductive health is super easy and really cheap. Just abstain or use a condom? That is so far from reality, I have to ask what planet you're on. Pay out of pocket cash to pay the OB/GYN? Do you have any idea how much that costs, and why women use PP in the first place? Many have NO employer health insurance, and very little funds to pay the $200 for office pelvic exams and PAPs. The cytology is another $100-200. Blood work extra. Mammograms are at least $200. Add on the cost of fitting a diaphragm or inserting and IUD or hormone implants....this all adds up to real money, real costs.
Women's BC and reproductive health is complicated and expensive. If the real goal is to reduce abortions, the real answer would be to fund PP more. I'm arguing that women have a need for healthcare involving their reproductive systems. Just like children need check-ups and vaccinations. The costs are prohibitive for the poor, working poor, uninsured, underinsured. Your answer to that is to.....slash federal funds in one place.....so costs will show up in another? Then slash those funds, too? If women can't "buy it on their own", and charities can't fill their needs either, they're just shit out of luck?
Not really. You're arguing that everything should be privatized, or provided by charity. No Tax Dollars! You're placing women's health on the same level as any other 'capital commodity'....say, sports stadiums or something. That's patently absurd. Health falls in with categories like Public Education and Public Safety. General Public Welfare. (Before the word welfare became bastardized.)Quote:
There you have it! We agree! The only thing I don't agree with is PP getting funding from the state, local, or federal governments.
You are arguing that the ends justify the means. I'm trying to get you to see how impossibly stupid that argument is.
:rolleyes: You're making the wrong "links" from my posts, but that's your bias showing, not my stream of consciousNess you're trying to "link". The state can very well diminish and destroy women's health.....not just by de-funding a private organization, as you suggest.....but by writing legislation so strict and tight that necessary services become unavailable or inaccessible. Just ask Kansas, Oklahoma, or South Dakota how that works.Quote:
I agree with precious little you write. I didn't comment on it because it is a non sequitur. Stream of consciousness posting may be a rewarding way to write for you, but it doesn't make for clear or well reasoned posts. You are trying to create a chain of causality between legislators allowing police to enter a residence for any reason, right or wrong, and the state government destroying reproductive rights because it doesn't fund a private organization. No such link exists, nor can it exist. Simply eliminating funding for something does not make it illegal, or even inaccessible. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is not the be all end all when it comes to reproductive health and services.
If the government cut funding to NPR, would it be destroying our first amendment rights?
We're not talking Dry Counties or Free Radio here. But when legislators exceed their scope, abuse their powers, to the detriment of citizens.
I really like this standard that often gets applied. Apparently the government is inept at doing anything, except things you don't approve of, at which point they're suddenly wizards at it. Regardless of this though, your complaint is like saying that Walmart isn't in the business of selling food, because sometimes they sell shoes. Yes, of course, the government does do things that infringe our rights. We should of course do things to change this. I highly doubt any possible government humans can come up with is going to have a perfect, with perfect defined as the harshest measurement the most uptight of us can define, track record when it comes to not infringing people's rights. However to claim that our government does very little in the way of protecting and defending our rights is hyperbolic. Which was my point. I'm unsure if it should have been clearer, but it seems to be popular on this forum to take "Its not as bad as you make it out to be." to mean "I believe the exact opposite of whatever you're stating."Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Where did I state this? See the above paragraph again if confused.Quote:
If you can criticize the government without being stomped into the ground, then it is impossible for the government to be infringing your rights as a private citizen? Is that right?
I can pretty much illustrate this is exaggeration on your part, or that at least you are not viewing things realistically as follows. If the US does very little to protect or ensure individual rights, or if my rating the US as "Okay (as in its not great, not bad, but okay)" on the protecting/ensuring rights scale constitutes an "extremely high tolerance for abuse" what can be said of Australia? Or moving even further into the land of not protecting or ensuring individual rights, China? Do we start quantifying it as Planck Units of rights at this point? You honestly think your perspective on the spectrum of rights and how current governments of the world relate to them is realistic?Quote:
I think I'll stand by my statement that you have an extremely high tolerance for abuse.
I don't understand why this was necessary. The Police were responding to a domestic situation. If they reasonably feared violence, they are entitled to go in without a warrant under the exigent circumstances rules. If they didn't fear violence, they had no reason to go in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
No-knock warrants means the police know best. Knock-down abortion rights means the state knows best.
Quote:
But then you'd abrogate the same principles when it comes to a woman exercising "personal property rights" of her own body, if it means abortion? And wouldn't expect the government to protect and defend her individual rights?
That is exactly what you have been arguing, GGT. To say otherwise would be, putting it kindly, disingenuous.Quote:
I find it both fascinating and frustrating that certain states would push so hard for the Right to own and carry a firearm, but take the opposite approach toward women having the Right to birth control and abortion.
Fantastic! That has nothing to do with what we have been discussing. At all.Quote:
You seem to believe women's reproductive health is super easy and really cheap. Just abstain or use a condom? That is so far from reality, I have to ask what planet you're on. Pay out of pocket cash to pay the OB/GYN? Do you have any idea how much that costs, and why women use PP in the first place? Many have NO employer health insurance, and very little funds to pay the $200 for office pelvic exams and PAPs. The cytology is another $100-200. Blood work extra. Mammograms are at least $200. Add on the cost of fitting a diaphragm or inserting and IUD or hormone implants....this all adds up to real money, real costs.
Or, you know, fund some other organization that provides reproductive health and education. Again, Planned Parenthood is not the only organization in the world that can provide these services, is it?Quote:
Women's BC and reproductive health is complicated and expensive. If the real goal is to reduce abortions, the real answer would be to fund PP more. I'm arguing that women have a need for healthcare involving their reproductive systems. Just like children need check-ups and vaccinations. The costs are prohibitive for the poor, working poor, uninsured, underinsured. Your answer to that is to.....slash federal funds in one place.....so costs will show up in another? Then slash those funds, too? If women can't "buy it on their own", and charities can't fill their needs either, they're just shit out of luck?
If, that is, I believe the government should be doing that in the first place, which I don't.
You seem to think so. I don't.Quote:
Not really. You're arguing that everything should be privatized, or provided by charity. No Tax Dollars! You're placing women's health on the same level as any other 'capital commodity'....say, sports stadiums or something. That's patently absurd. Health falls in with categories like Public Education and Public Safety. General Public Welfare. (Before the word welfare became bastardized.)
I don't think the government is inept at doing everything, I think it is more prone to waste, inefficiencies, fraud, and abuse. Certainly there are things it has shown itself to be inept at doing, but I don't think I've categorically claimed that it is inept at everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
You seem to be implying here that if people aren't being violently oppressed that the government that they are not being denied rights anywhere. Otherwise, how is it germane to the conversation, and why would you write it?Quote:
Where did I state this? See the above paragraph again if confused.
It tells us they aren't in the business of stomping people into the ground on every occasion where someone criticizes the government, and will try to make sure others don't harm you for doing so either.
If that's not what you meant, and in fact what you meant to say was that no government is going to have a perfect track record, and we should all strive our hardest to make the world a better place, that's okay too. It doesn't however have much to do with the conversation at hand.
The government has, both historically and today, been more than willing to bend, distort, and completely disregard the rights of the individual when it suits its purposes. Now, that's a very generalized statement, to be sure. The government is hardly a monolithic entity. At times, all three branches have had a somewhat better or worse record of limiting or abusing individual rights. Interning Japanese American citizens during World War II, suspending Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and engaging in secret warrantless wire taps and other SIGINT operations on American citizens for the better part of a decade, (and very likely before that) hardly constitutes a government that is keen on protecting an individuals rights. Does this mean they are intent on oppressing all rights? Certainly not.Quote:
I can pretty much illustrate this is exaggeration on your part, or that at least you are not viewing things realistically as follows. If the US does very little to protect or ensure individual rights, or if my rating the US as "Okay (as in its not great, not bad, but okay)" on the protecting/ensuring rights scale constitutes an "extremely high tolerance for abuse" what can be said of Australia? Or moving even further into the land of not protecting or ensuring individual rights, China? Do we start quantifying it as Planck Units of rights at this point? You honestly think your perspective on the spectrum of rights and how current governments of the world relate to them is realistic?
Is that to say that there are no circuit court judges in Indiana, or senators from California, or alderman from Chicago, who don't have strong feelings about personal privacy and individual liberty? Of course not. I had assumed we were having a conversation where generalities were accepted, and were not engaged in pedantic pedagogy where countless caveats and addendum have to be used.
That's what I thought too.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In your own words, we were discussing when government is willing to bend, distort, and completely disregard the rights of the individual when it suits its purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It's disingenuous of Indiana legislators to deny or ignore when they're going over the line, yet claiming to protect individual rights. Whether it's manipulating home protection or reproductive protection, it's the government laws we're criticizing.
IMO they've over-reached in both areas. I've been wanting you to explain why you're bothered by the self-protection part, but not the birth control part.
Yeah, then stop doing that. :pQuote:
I had assumed we were having a conversation where generalities were accepted, and were not engaged in pedantic pedagogy where countless caveats and addendum have to be used.
I think you're woefully uninformed about which health services are available, where, and to whom. PP has filled a huge gap in our system for decades: State Health Departments don't run clinics in every city; hospital systems partner with local governments to run overwhelmed "Free Clinics" for anything from ear infections to gonorrhea; private doctor visits are quite expensive; using the ER is more expensive; ~50 million don't have health insurance....ie it's difficult for women to actually find and get the care they need. Indiana shouldn't be making that situation worse.Quote:
Or, you know, fund some other organization that provides reproductive health and education. Again, Planned Parenthood is not the only organization in the world that can provide these services, is it? If, that is, I believe the government should be doing that in the first place, which I don't.
Part of our hang-up here is that you don't believe gov't should be funding anything health-related, any more than gov't should be subsidizing people buying guns. Somehow it's all about the money and tax dollars to you, pistols the same as birth control pills? That's not the world we live in, y'know. You can hope all you want that women's healthcare is easy and cheap, with all sorts of "organizations" providing low cost services like a Walgreens and CVS on every corner, and tax dollars shouldn't be used. But you'd be wrong.
Nessus apologizes for once again failing to report on Nessus's personal life to Dreadnaught; Nessus has been celebrating events that do not pass the news barrier in the United States of Fuck the Poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:rolleyes: Nowhere did I suggest they did, and after half a dozen posts from me ridiculing your absolutely asinine "be a True Scotsman or move to Engurland" stance, one would assume you'd catch the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In my own words to Illusions, sure. In my words to you I was asking why you are lying about your position in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
If you're asking if I'd be interested in a law that would bar the government from overreaching in the personal sphere of the American citizen, be it their methods of self protection, or their preferred method of birth control, I would answer, "Definitely, yes."
But that's not what you are asking, GGT. Instead you are stating that by not funding a private organization, Indiana legislators are denying the rights of individuals to legal birth control. The two are not remotely equivalent, and an almost echolalian repetition will not make it so.
You pretty much summed it up correctly. I don't believe the government should be providing much, if any health care, to anyone. And you are also right that my views do not describe the world we live in. Of course, the world we live in has us over 14 trillion dollars in debt, spending tens of thousands of dollars every second, putting crippling interest payments on the debt, directly tied to real cuts in services on our children's shoulders for generations to come.Quote:
Part of our hang-up here is that you don't believe gov't should be funding anything health-related, any more than gov't should be subsidizing people buying guns. Somehow it's all about the money and tax dollars to you, pistols the same as birth control pills? That's not the world we live in, y'know. You can hope all you want that women's healthcare is easy and cheap, with all sorts of "organizations" providing low cost services like a Walgreens and CVS on every corner, and tax dollars shouldn't be used. But you'd be wrong.
In short, keep up the good work!
Last damn time I'm saying this. States are using abortion as the reason to de-fund PP. They're trying to justify it by saying there's no proof of a federal money "firewall" for abortions, which is nonsense. There's no way to talk about this without bringing up abortion services---that's how this has been framed by pro-life groups and legislators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Just because you ignore the connection doesn't make the reality disappear. I have never said PP funding and birth control rights were equivalent, but that legislators are denying the same link you are. The funding void will have a negative impact on women's healthcare and access to birth control.
Also, there's nothing to warrant your choice of terms ("disingenuous, lying, echolocation"), etc.
:donkey:
The GOP seems on a trajectory to add more children to our future, especially among poor women. Stupid counter-productive plan. /tangent tease.Quote:
You pretty much summed it up correctly. I don't believe the government should be providing much, if any health care, to anyone. And you are also right that mt views do not describe the world we live in. Of course, the world we live in has us over 14 trillion dollars in debt, spending tens of thousands of dollars every second, putting crippling interest payments on the debt tied to real cuts to services on our children's shoulders for generations to come.
In short, keep up the good work!
That may be, but even if they did that does not mean the government is interfering with a woman's reproductive rights. Unless you believe those rights are guaranteed by Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, instead you said that Indiana was knocking down abortion rights, and restricting a woman's right to birth control and abortions, and is doing so by removing funding from Planned Parenthood.Quote:
Just because you ignore the connection doesn't make the reality disappear. I have never said PP funding and birth control rights were equivalent, but that legislators are denying the same link you are. The funding void will have a negative impact on women's healthcare and access to birth control.
Nothing, except perhaps, your posting behavior?Quote:
Also, there's nothing to warrant your choice of terms ("disingenuous, lying, echolocation"), etc.
:donkey:
Well, thank Glod I don't vote GOP then.Quote:
The GOP seems on a trajectory to add more children to our future, especially among poor women. Stupid counter-productive plan. /tangent tease.
May Day was 16 days ago. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
But aw come on, don't take it personally. I'm not criticizing you having stuff to do, I'm saying that you posted a thread with a somewhat nonsensical commentary about an issue that is really worth discussing. And I'm curious what your view actually is on this.
True, I am not aware of what's going on in Finland besides the leader of the True Finns publishing a very weird editorial in our Wall Street Journal.