QUOTE: <<<Bush's Theme Song!>>>

Hey, I don't hear BUSH singing it... who's theme song is it? The person who gets angry and curses when someone uses logic and common sense against his nonsensical, emotional arguments?

Intolerance - will not be tolerated!

Ok, this is going to be VERY long, as since Sing (and I knew he would) decided to tackle every issue, I should in kind do the same defending my beliefs and why I agree with a majority of the issues...

"1. I believe taxes are necessary to provide for the defense and common good of a nation, a "sales tax" system would not provide enough revenue without seriously effecting sales."

The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." That's it. That's all they have the right to tax. Up until 1913 this did this the right way, by a tariff system. The direct tax on income, payroll by companies, and estate taxes IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Now how to pay the bills...replace it with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes. When the funds become insufficient to cover "legitimate" federal costs, a state rate tax in which the responsibility for covering the cost will be met by several states in accordance to proportion of total population. What this will accomplish also is state politices would be arguing for "LESS" pork spending rather then more.

2. Without world intervention we are nothing more than a backseat driver in world affairs. While the UN may not be perfect, at least it's a place people can talk before they start to shoot.

Well for one thing, we don't need to be part of the UN to have our voice heard. Two nations, the Vatican, and the Swiss both have honorary seats that allow them to speak when they want, without being apart of the UN. SO that alone pretty much takes care of the issue of us not being involved in world affairs. But should we at the cost? We are a sovereign nation, but with our allegiance to the UN, we are bound by treaty and commitment to use "U.S. TAX PAYER MONEY" and military forces to help them. The United States is now committed by treaty to defend foreign nations in all parts of the world. Furthermore, with US peace keeping "wars", United States troops are involved in combat in un-declared congressional wars.

3. World trade agreements are a mixed bag, world trade organizations too. Not sure I'm ready give up the benefits considering that it does help to insure #2.

In the hopes that by free trade, America would lose low paying shoe making jobs and other textile industries, we would be able to gain more high tech end jobs. Well that is obviously not working as more tech jobs are now being shipped overseas as well. Free trade does not do any good for the American Worker. Two examples...one that worked, one that didn't. In the 1880's up until as late as the 1960's, the major economic slogan for this nation was, "What's good for U.S. Steal is good for the world". That was so true...while we were able to export our steel, even with tariffs, we were able to make money, and also the real trickledown effect worked as it benefited almost every sector of the economy. Today however, look at our major industries, mainly U.S. Lumber and Tech goods. We can't sell our crap overseas cause of it either being closed to our markets, or "unfair pricing" being lower then other nations. Goods in this nation are hurt, and that then hurts jobs. NOW, looking at it from a Constitutional point, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers which it does with these trade treaties. Our Counties workers are becoming nothing more then pawns for foreign investors as well as international banks.

4. While you're at it deport everyone that isn't a Native American. We're all illegal aliens according to someone's law.

Umm, don’t know where you are getting that at all, except you are twisting the words, something I would not have expected from you. Native Americans are legal citizens of this Nation, and have been since (date could be wrong, don’t' want to look it up) 1921? What I stated was the deportation of "ILLIGAL" people in this nation. We are a free country, and a country of immigrants, and should remain so; however you can't just cross the border. These immigrants - including illegal aliens - have been made eligible for various kinds of public assistance, including housing, education, Social Security, and legal services. This unconstitutional drain on the federal Treasury is having a severe and adverse impact on our economy, increasing the cost of government at federal, state, and local levels, adding to the tax burden, and stressing the fabric of society.

5. Live and let live. If someone else's marriage isn't bothering me, why should I ban it? I got to wonder who in the world worries so much about OTHER PEOPLE's gay marriage that they would go to this extreme. Methinks there's a bit of closet-queerdom coming from the leaders of that party.

I love this argument...the "attack" anyone makes if they disagree with this subject. While it's normal liberal slander to attack anyone against this view, you of all people I thought would not resort to it. You are more then well aware that personal attacks have no place in honest debate and should be left to the playground. Given that, on a "PERSONAL" note, I don't 100% agree with this view. I have my feelings to and against it...and could debate it further, but I’ll let this one pass with the other more important pressing issues at hand

6. It's alive and well. What about the first amendment? What if my free speech violates the 10 commandments? (see next)

(Two different things here, we not talking about the first amendment here) It is? Really? With the laws that restrict all Americans, the waiting periods and background checks to see if you are "able to" have a gun? Sorry, it's not alive...it's restricted completely and this is a "FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of all American citizens to have. It's CONSTITUTIONAL.

7. This is not a Christian country. It's a seculary country. The founding fathers were not particularly Christian, rather deist masons with a strong belief in the need for secular independance. Seperation of church and state has continued to prove itself time and time again. And I for one am very very glad I don't live in a funde nation. Remind me to tell you the dinosaur story sometime.

Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in any of our nations founding documents, but does talk of God in every one. Where however the restoration of the 10 commandments comes from is when even public officials wish to display it or talk about it. Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.


8. Uhhh. Ok, so eliminate all federal funding of education? Wow. Thats what we need, a bunch of relgiously-indoctrinated youngins w/ no formal education in the arts and sciences. I have yet to meet a home-schooled individual that can explain the difference between fermions and bosons or even pass a basic calculus test. Or discuss the philosophical implications of Pascal's wager on religion or the meaning of early philosophy on theology. Stuff my friends and I could do by 11th grade.

Wow, you really believe that? I'm not sure how old you are, but I do believe you are several years older then me, and therefore went to public school SEVERAL years before me. I'm 28, been out of the public schools for 10 years. I'm a year and a half away from finishing college, and going back to public schools to teach (at least at first till I can get into college teaching where I want to be). HOWEVER, 1-don't bring up the religions aspect here, it has no bearing. Don't twist the subject...we are talking about the elimination of the Department of Education. Our Nation has NEVER been dumber then it has right now. Our Children can not read at the right level, do even simple math, or point out where Iraq is if it was not for the war. Our public school are in SHAMBLES, and this is in large part due to the incompitancy of the Federal Government infringing on Education where they don't belong. It's gone totally backwards. In the 1920 up thru the 50's, American students led the world in academic statistics. Now we are falling way behind, and it was in 1970something that Carter created the Department. Where Education should come in is the parents should decide how they want them to learn, at home, at school (private or public at there choice) or religious. The government doing anything to stop that infringes on the personal liberties of the Citizen. And if a Child does not attend a Governmental school, they should be relived a tax for that so they don't pay twice to educate there children. And finally, your topics of discussion, I would have a very hard time finding 1 high school student, or for that matter 2 out of every 5 college students that know of any of the topics you discussed. It is NOT taught in schools today. Heck I'm not ashamed to admit I can't do Calculus. I'm in my second College Math class now, simple Trig, and while I’m passing, I’m doing so only with lots of tutoring and hard studying. Does not mean however that the public schools are doing the job.

9. What about in cases of rape and incest? Or in cases of medical complications? Abortion may seem "wrong" to some... but who are we to judge the actions of another when our own are imperfect? I find it funny that people want to re-instate the 10 commandments when Christ himself wasn't a particular fan of them. What with the pharisees and 2 great commandments and all that.

Well two parts here, I’ll tackle the second first. Christ supported every one of the 10 commandments in his teachings. The 2 great commandments are in a way, and not to take this into a theological debate which would take it way off subject is additional laws of God that comes from the new covenant with God. Now, as far as Abortion goes, you say there are some who see it as wrong, I say its split down the middle, and semantics play the leading role in how Americans vote on the subject. But instead of talking about Abortion as a whole, you tackle 1 issue specific to uphold the whole tragedy of this. Speaking on a Constitutional level,
the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances should the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father. In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution

10. And if some crazy guy gets ahold of a gun and mows down a TV studio full of people (which happened 2 miles from where I used to live)? Some guns laws are reasonable.. people w/ a history of violent mental illness should not have guns. If you're not someone w/ a violent history (or criminal history) and want to have a gun... fine, but there's nothing wrong w/ requiring some training or licensing. We require driver's licenses and cars don't kill when used as directed.

As cars don't kill when used right, so is guns. Training should be done, sure, but not on a federal level. Once again, the Government is infringing on the CONSTITUTINAL rights of American citizens.

The idea of a bunch of religion fundes packing heat, shooting everyone that doesn't follow their ignorant version of the 10 commandments is absolutely terrifying. Folks, I will not be supporting the constitution party.. Which is ironically named since the constitution itself would not support the constitution party.


Irony? Really? Well I looked over the Constitution, even went back for this post to get my article numbers right. Seems to me everything that I said is completely supported by this document we hold to such a high standard. And it has nothing to do with "religion fundes" as you call it, and I truly believe that is a slanderous attack on me personally. No where did I or anyone ever say people would shoot anyone who does not believe in there values. Don't play a scare tactic; it has no place here whatsoever.

QUOTE: Well, kinda like I touched on earlier, I agree, and disagree, pro choice, yet pro life. I belive its the decision of BOTH parties involved, not just one, in the case of a rape, that is up to one person, IMO.

PRO CHOICE? A woman and a man make choices that lead to new life and then, usually the woman alone, denies that new life a choice or a chance.

That is such a load of crap - why don't they call it what it is, pro-MURDER. Or we can go back to the Roman custom where you had what, was it 2 years to decide if you were gonna let your kid live... that's basically what abortion is only with a shorter event horizon.

A man and a woman (except, as pointed out in extreme cases like rape, for which strict exceptions might be considered) make a choice to risk creating a new life. They don't have to - any one of several birth control methods have high probabilities (approaching 100%) of success and in practice achieve that goal if properly and religiously practiced. Don't give me that pro-choice crap, it's another leftist lie and it fits in perfectly with thier philosophy of no responsibility for one's actions.

QUOTE: summer after Bush was elected there was this massive series of forest fires out in the western states, Utah, Nevada, Arizona and parts of California. I remember driving out down the highway and looking at the smoke... then when I got home I turned on the TV and saw Bush playing golf.

First, I doubt you saw a live shot, it was probably tape from who knows when. Second, what do you expect Bush to just hop on old Air Force one, don parajump gear and drop into the front line of every forest fire? As for Katrina - well I lived in New Orleans in the 1970s and I predicted what happened almost to a T... the amazing thing is it took about 30 years for it to happen! Everyone knew New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen, much like there are places all along the east coast just waiting to be wiped out by hurricanes, places along major rivers just waiting to get flooded like we saw in the central US some years back, etc. In the big fire out here a few years back my son & sister were evacuated and had the wind not shifted I found out I was within 15 minutes of being evacuated too...

New Orleans had an evacuation plan - it was not implemented and then it was too late once they wised up.

New Orleans is the PERFECT example against the leftist philosophy of depending on goverment as your be-all and do-all. Not if you want to live!

The question is will they rebuild New Orleans wisely or just set it up to be another disaster waiting to happen. Knowing people, I expect the latter.

ya know gwar, you can address 2 topics in one post.. it takes practice i know but someday you'll get it down

WHEN BUSH CAME INTO OFFICE:

When Bush came into office the economy was feeling the effects of 8 years of mismanagement and bad policies under Clinton/Gore. The "peace dividend" of the Reagan/Bush years and the tax cuts had super-stimulated the economy and produced the setting which gave us the longest peacetime expansion in history... and Clinton managed to bring it all to an end and handed Bush an economy that was headed into the toilet. Amazingly enough Bush made the right moves and turned what should have been a depression into a mild recession, if that (economists are still arguing the fine points) and despite the gloom-and-doom desires of the left, the economy is actually doing pretty good. Unemployment is much lower than in Europe and even low historically by American standards. Of cours a lot of the government regulation and union meddling has priced American goods out of any competitive position here and abroad so of course there's trouble ahead... plus with huge pools of virtual slave labor (and much industry owned by the military) in China... well we ARE going to have a conflict with China if their leadership doesn't change radically - the only question is when.

quote:Originally posted by LoCuTiS

coke have you ever lived in a state with no income tax? let me demonstrate...

$44 to put your car on the road in New York state, good for 2 years

$3000 to put your car on the road in New Hampshire, good for 1 year

which state doesnt have the income tax?


Can you send me a link saying that? I haven't found it yet, all I did find was that you have to write to the city or county you live in for the fees to register a car. I really have a hard time believing that price, but until I know for sure, i'll reseve a real comment OH but I do know, it's more then 44 to put the car on the road in NY. My Car is a 2004 Saturn Vue, cost me 72 dollars. My wife's car is a 2001 Nissan Altima, cost me 53 dollars, but good for two years, but then we also have 15 dollars a year inspection for both cars. Of course our Property taxes is a major kick in the booty, and NY is ranked the number 2 highest taxed state in the Union by CNN woohoo... http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/ ... index.html

QUOTE: ACtually your wrong, When Bush came to office we were at are peek in Education spending.. Since Bush has cut Education 3 times to add more in the millitary.

I found this deliciously ironic as well... spending all that money on educatation and Jonny still can't even spell properly. And no, Bush did not "cut education to add more to the military". Even if there had been ZERO going to education at the time, or no change in education funding, the military budget would have incrased due to world events. The two are not connected in that way.

MULTIPLE POSTS: I see I'm not the only one who posted here multiple times, including the person who said I was trying to inflate my post count (why I would consciously do that I don't know and don't care). I just posted when I had a minute to read and found something worth posting back. That's all - there's a lot of material here to cover and I just did what everyone else was doing - covered it in pieces. Well almost everyone...

Gwar, comment on multiple posts was about multiple posts IN A ROW rather than making them all one single post. It's a bit... irritating. lol.


Coke:
Loonnnnnng post warning!!!

1. Sorry. Income taxes are perfectly constitutional.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

16th amendment to the US constitution says:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration." Ratified on 2/3/1913

Part of the constitution involves adding new amendments, therefore by
definition income taxes are perfectly legal.

A system backed by excise taxes alone will not work. Not enough money
is collected, the few places that have tried this either cut services
or raise taxes so high as to make purchases prohibative. States don't
have the power to raise large sums of money, so they would be largely
out of the loop What it would do is greatly reduce the amount spent on
federal services. I do not think that's a good thing. Remember that money
spent by the gov't isn't "spent" in the way you and I would spend it. It's
sent back into circulation at the private level which it then recovers in
taxes. Anytime money moves, we all get a little richer. Anytime it stops
moving... we all get a little poorer. Pork spending is okay since it means
more is spent on bridges, telecom, roads, farm subsidies and more. Imagine
a world of toll roads, where infrastructure costs you what it actually
costs them to build. You would not be able to afford internet access
right now if that was the case. That is the nation you are proposing. One
who's entire concern is over property rights, even at the cost of personal
liberty and quality of life. History has disproven that as an effective
method of governing.

2. When was the last time you actually took the Vatican and the Swiss
serious in matters of international affairs? When was the last either
set a global policy with a capacity for enforcement? There is nothing
sacred about US tax payer money. And yes we are involved, many of which
are low-grade conflicts or nothing more than humanitarian missions. The
US congress was given the power to declare war, yet the President was
given the power as commander-in-chief.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion,
in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments,
upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and
he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against
the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Does this mean that the President can only act after congress has allowed
it? Or that the President has the capacity to give orders to the current
military as he sees fit? This is a question that has plagued constitutional
scholars for a century or more... and not one so easily solved as "it's
unconsitutional to do blah..."


3. There is no evidence that we would gain more high-paying jobs. We do
not have a monopoly on brain power or education. Back to #1, if we
reduce the amount spent on education fewer people would be able to afford
one... leading to even less high-tech jobs. Trickle down does not work. What
is good for X is good for Y is only a slogan with no real economic basis.
Supply-side economics are inherently flawed, they rely on the higher-ups
spending money down-chain. But that does not happen, only a tiny percentage
of the money goes down-chain, the rest is saved in various forms based on
supposed economic indicators. Quite commonly the money is used to prop-up
the price of stock shares allowing people w/ options a chance to take a
different position in the market. The money itself stays in the company as
an asset or passed out in dividends which are in turn re-invested. No added
liquidity is passed back to the market, instead requiring years (10, 20...
30) for the effects to fully mature. This is why the latest round of business
tax cuts have not helped the working classes at all, nor created any new
high-level jobs. Demand-side economics work, however. Instead of giving
corporations low taxes we should make consumer debt interest tax-deductable
again, including all student loan interest. In short... employers hire people
because they make money and need more help. They make money because they
sell stuff to people, so if people can't buy... employers can't hire. There
are more people than there are companies, so a tiny change to that helps
people to buy will do more than a tiny change that helps companies profit.

Following the commander-in-chief passage:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to
make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:
but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers,
as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the
Heads of Departments."

The ability to regulate commerce includes the ability to establish commerce
treaties. Nice try tho


4. Anytime someone wants to deport another... I laugh. Because it's a
joke. I am against restricting travel between nations except for immediate
matters of national security. By default, Native Americans are the only ones
with any real claim to the land we're currently on. We're a nation of
immigrants, that's the entire concept of a free and open society. We accept
other people and give them a chance to work... realizing what benefits them
will in turn benefit us (network power curve instead of a fixed-pie scenario).
Again there is nothing sacred about the US treasury. We spend money on people
because it is good to do so, it improves the living conditions of everyone
effected and indirectly improves our own. A rising tide lifts all boats. Taxes
do not stress society, I've known some pretty happy people with high taxes.
My concern is quality of life... taxes make a convenient scape goat to personal
misery for those that refuse introspection. 14th amendment guarantees equal
access to the law for all citizens, I see nothing wrong with giving partial
access to the law for non-citizens.


5. Being gay is a personal attack? See... I don't consider homosexuality to
be an attack of any sort. While I myself am straight, I've known a number of
gays and lesbians and have found they are generally good, honest people. On
a matter of psychology tho... it's called projection. A person sees in others
what they refuse to see in themselves. Of course nobody wants to admit that,
but when someone talks obsessively about gay marriage... it makes you wonder
what they're trying to cover up.

10th amendment to the constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.

Seems like you'd need an amendment to make gay marriage illegal. One of the
only amendments that would actually ELIMINATE a person's rights. Seems wrong.


6. Yes you can have a gun. I have a shotgun, have no desire for a handgun.
But if I wanted one... I could quite easily get one. There's a store not too
far from where I live now called "Don's guns." This old greyhair guy on TV
has more weapons that I'll ever need... and short of a few forms to fill out,
any one of them could be mine for the right price. But then again I don't
have a criminal history, nor do I have a history of violent mental illness...
nor would I ever use a gun to commit a crime or injure another person outside
of self-defence. See later on for the actual text of the 2nd amendment.


7. Yes you can practice your religion as long as you allow me to practice
mine. The 10 commandments... that's your religion. Not mine. If I wanted to
sacrifice a goat in the name of some unholy spirit, I should be allowed to do
that too. If I want to sit in the middle of class and worship a graven image
(which I wouldn't, but still) then that's my right under the constitution. I
don't see anyone wanting to restore idol worship. Your statement was not "Let's
restore the right to choose religions" it was expressly "Let's restore the
10 commandments" to gov't which absolutely interferes with my ability to
practice my own religion as I see fit, especially if my religion is one of
choice versus one of dictation. It is NOT okay, under the constitution or
anywhere else, to force religion on people that don't want it. The 10
commandments are a religion document, hence they have no place on the federal
stage.


8. I am around your age. If you think education and religion have no
correlation... you are sadly mistaken. Our public educational system is not
in shambles. Yes it has some things that could be fixed... but it still does a
decent job for those students that want to learn. Yes our nation HAS been
dumber (ugh... more dumb? ROTFLOL). There was a time when most people couldn't
even read. When, literally, education meant learning how to add, subtract,
multiply, divide, read some from the Bible, a little Shakespeare and being
able to spell your name. Put things into some perspective here. Maybe if you
say "We're dumber now than we were 30 years ago" then sure... I'd agree w/
that. But throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater is not the answer. Especially
when then the "solution" will only make things worse. You're still free to get
a religious education if you want, but you also have to get a secular one.
Choice is one thing, but if your choice interferes with my ability to make a
choice... then we need a compromise. Fact is you live in society. You pay for
that society. That means paying w/ taxes, it means paying for other people's
education because even tho it isn't yours... it still benefits you. Therefore
you have to pay for it.

When I was in school I learned of the aforementioned topics and many other
things. I was, obviously, in the "AP" classes... but they were still taught.
My sister is a senior in highschool and taking a class in discrete math. We
had a discussion on game theory the other day... her take is very different
from my own, but it was refreshing to be able to dicuss it w/ someone so young.
The dept of education has it's flaws, but it continues to be a critical link
in the chain for those that wish to invest in the process. The problem with
education today is not government, it's simply that young people today are not
as interested in learning... education has not been prioritized in their life.
Let's not look to gov't for every little problem or answer, k?


9. Christ supported every one of the 10 commandments? Ok then. Have fun with
that fantasy, I'm not going argue theology with someone that can't acknowledge
the flaws in their own belief system. Fundes... heh.


10. Guns kill people when used as directed. That is one of their primary
functions. It's just point and click.

2nd amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed."

For the purpose of having a well-regulated militia... being neccessary
to the security of a free state, you can have guns. If you're not part of a
well-regulated militia then you aren't covered here. What constitutes a
well-regulated militia? Well... I'd say some basic admittance requirements,
some training... etc. The US military does background checks, why shouldn't
a militia? Maybe a broader scope of the term militia could be adopted to
include everyone that could potentially fall within federal militia
guidelines. Wait, isn't that more or less what we have now?

Subtext... quoting the constitution is like quoting the bible. It's easy
to take things out of context, using a specific interpretation of the text
to make a case. But constitutional law is not this simple, never has been.

It sounds to me like the "Constitution party" is anything but. It selectively
chooses a few thing it likes and throws out the rest, interpreting the text
as it will in order to chase it's own goals. This is a re-occurring theme
these days.

no i dont have a link saying that.. i lived it

quote:Originally posted by GWAR

QUOTE: ACtually your wrong, When Bush came to office we were at are peek in Education spending.. Since Bush has cut Education 3 times to add more in the millitary.

I found this deliciously ironic as well... spending all that money on educatation and Jonny still can't even spell properly. And no, Bush did not "cut education to add more to the military". Even if there had been ZERO going to education at the time, or no change in education funding, the military budget would have incrased due to world events. The two are not connected in that way.


The Irony.. hmmm I don't use spell check and I hate the Subject "english" so my grammer prolly sucks as well, But I am a 3.8 student right now as a Senior...

How you can u say their not connected, Everything you have in a budjet is connected by the princible that you can't have an unlimited budjet. So it comes down to If you want to raise spending on 1 thing and lower actually try and lower the deficet, you are going to have to lower other items. Just doesn't make sence that when talking about a budget you think that items or COSTS are not related.. they are all related..

quote:Originally posted by GWAR

QUOTE: Well, kinda like I touched on earlier, I agree, and disagree, pro choice, yet pro life. I belive its the decision of BOTH parties involved, not just one, in the case of a rape, that is up to one person, IMO.

PRO CHOICE? A woman and a man make choices that lead to new life and then, usually the woman alone, denies that new life a choice or a chance.

That is such a load of crap - why don't they call it what it is, pro-MURDER. Or we can go back to the Roman custom where you had what, was it 2 years to decide if you were gonna let your kid live... that's basically what abortion is only with a shorter event horizon.

A man and a woman (except, as pointed out in extreme cases like rape, for which strict exceptions might be considered) make a choice to risk creating a new life. They don't have to - any one of several birth control methods have high probabilities (approaching 100%) of success and in practice achieve that goal if properly and religiously practiced. Don't give me that pro-choice crap, it's another leftist lie and it fits in perfectly with thier philosophy of no responsibility for one's actions.




You are SEVERLY SEVERLY mistaken.

My ex and I had known eachother 12 years, we were best friends before we started dating. Due to several circumstances our relationship only lasted 6 months. During that entire time, she was taking a drug called ORTHRO EVRA (Next to Depo or a UTI (implant, not infection) it is the highest rated form of birth control) 9 months after we split up "Surprise, your a daddy".

Did we want kids? Nope. Did we have one? Yup. Was she on birth control? Yup. Did she have a choice to abort? Nope, she wasn't even aware that she was pregnant until she went into labor (carried in her back)

So, a slight comment to GWAR. If you don't know what the **** your talking about, try to glue your fingers together. Honestly, I don't want you trying to 'miseducate' those that are moldable.

If any of you would like to see the news article, I'll gladly scan and post it. (With or without permission of the tribune, I really don't care)

Plain and simple, you can plan not to have children, and have them anyway. Am I glad she didn't have a chance to have an abortion, most definatly, however I would like to point out, that my ex was also a victim of rape, that resulted in pregnancy... Today makayla is 3 and a shinning star, just has an attitude problem (I blame her mother).

So, if you want to get into a debate on pro choice, I think you might have picked the wrong candidate to debate against.

Try a 12 year old next time, probably more on your level.

Graz

someone does not share the same view as you so they are compared to 12 year olds?

only when they post misinformation loc