Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 12:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 7:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 12:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/5/2019 11:09:00 PM (view original):
Gomiami sums it up well. You have every right to believe what you believe and i'm glad that you have a party to call home. It must be nice. I don't have one. Like I have said, I most closely relate with the libertarian party, but that's a waste as they practically win no elections.

I believe that every able-bodied person should be responsible for themselves. If they fail, that's on them. I don't believe it's the responsibility to help those who aren't able-bodied either. I believe that responsibility falls on the community, church, etc.

i dont mean this in a snide way....i really mean that......but im the agnostic who thinks that all the bibles are myths and God is not involved in our lives
and you are a believer in the testaments
but i believe in everyone being the good samaritan and you do not.
it is a microcosm of such a national paradox.

Dino, you have it totally backwards. I believe in everyone being a Good Samaritan. You believe Mr. omnipotent government can always come in compel action. I don't believe we need government for people to do the right thing. For some reason, you have this view that if people are against the government meddling in our lives then they are against helping people. That is just not right and I'm not sure why you think that. Your worldview is very backwards. I'm not being snide either.

you get it wrong.....individuals will not help others esp those with your point of view who say if able bodied people fail its on them....churches cant afford to help thousands and more...it is a pipe dream. for people who say fend for yourself even if you cant.

I respect your viewpoint, but we will just continue to disagree. I believe in the good in people. Tang mentioned that he is pessimistic about people, but optimistic about government. My worldview is the opposite. It's based on history. ZERO governments in history have been pure. They all have been corrupt at some point. I feel my dislike for big government is pretty justified based on history.

Communities should help and now we have GoFundMe pages and online communities. Govt is bleh.

Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 12:31:00 PM (view original):
It is most certainly the exact same argument as the slavery argument, so yes really slavery. The slavery argument was that it was my property to do what I want with. The abortion argument is that it is my body to do what I want with. Both arguments involve separate human life. To say otherwise is strictly denial. There is zero logical reasoning to end another person's life with abortion. It is not freedom of choice. It's the opposite of freedom and it is as disgusting of a practice as slavery. This is not me being holier than thou. This is me caring about people. Dino wants to help those who can physically fend for themselves and have a say. I would rather help those can't and have no voice in the issue. That is what true compassion is. Abortion is the most unamerican thing since slavery. It is abhorrent. It is taking the life of the innocent because they are inconvenient to you.

Abortion is lethal 100% of the time.

Nuts! and I disagree.

You are equating the words "property" and "body".

They are clearly not the same thing.

It's quite clear in virtually any religiously based code that "taking a life"/murder over property is not condoned.
Even in our violent society (Most states!) you can't shoot to kill someone who is fleeing with your property unless they threaten your life.

When your "body" is in question the rules differ. In all moral codes I know about.

Thus property and body are NOT comparable for the purpose of this discussion.
Thus slavery and abortion are NOT comparable and the argument is only used to attempt to inflame the issue and attempt to denigrate the opposing legitimate argument.

You know better than that Coach! Fair is fair.
Your anti-abortion argument is clearly religious based and strongly held.
You have a right to feel that way.
You don't have (supposedly) a right to inject your religious views onto the rest of us who believe differently via Law.
Your moral code has no "right" to pre-empt any other citizens.
Even a young pregnant foolish girl. Even IF she makes the wrong decision.

God says Judge not. The Constitution says YOUR religion can't be established on us all.
Freedom. even when I don't like your free will!

Cut and pasted from the internet thus it must be true. LOL

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

1929 ?

There is nothing accurate about your post.

In both slavery and the killing of unborn children, you are making life or death decisions for someone else who doesn't have a say. It's morally abhorrent. I am saying nothing to inflame the argument. The truth is the truth. People talk about pregnancy as if the baby was a tumor that needs to be removed. It is a living, breathing human life. You know this. I know this.

My argument has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. If I were an atheist, I would feel the same way. It is wrong to kill the innocent. It is sickening that people try so hard to rationalize this. We should all stand up to protect those that can't defend themselves.

You keep bringing my religion into this. Show me one place where I have used religion to make this argument.

The problem with your argument is that young foolish girl is making the decision to kill an innocent child. To say otherwise is flat out wrong.

I just don't understand why as a country we have decided that killing the innocent is wrong and we talk about how we need to protect the children, but if it only applies if it fits our agenda. Screw the kids if it doesn't. It is extremely hypocritical. You can't call yourselves the party of compassion and then have no drive to actually protect the innocent and be compassionate.

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Look at the polling data. There's a reason no politicians push to cut social security or medicare. And if the ACA was so unpopular, the GOP could have wiped it out through reconciliation anytime in the last two years. But they didn't because people like have pre-existing coverage protection. If anything, health care is going to move FARTHER left.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
There is nothing accurate about your post.

In both slavery and the killing of unborn children, you are making life or death decisions for someone else who doesn't have a say. It's morally abhorrent. I am saying nothing to inflame the argument. The truth is the truth. People talk about pregnancy as if the baby was a tumor that needs to be removed. It is a living, breathing human life. You know this. I know this.

My argument has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. If I were an atheist, I would feel the same way. It is wrong to kill the innocent. It is sickening that people try so hard to rationalize this. We should all stand up to protect those that can't defend themselves.

You keep bringing my religion into this. Show me one place where I have used religion to make this argument.

The problem with your argument is that young foolish girl is making the decision to kill an innocent child. To say otherwise is flat out wrong.

I just don't understand why as a country we have decided that killing the innocent is wrong and we talk about how we need to protect the children, but if it only applies if it fits our agenda. Screw the kids if it doesn't. It is extremely hypocritical. You can't call yourselves the party of compassion and then have no drive to actually protect the innocent and be compassionate.

The fetus is a human life but its survival depends on the host. And, until that's no longer the case, the host gets to decide when it leaves.

i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 12:08:00 PM (view original):
So, if I were to concede that those cases should be legal, would you concede that the other cases should be illegal?

I am not going to call anything illegal. I think there should be general guidelines for what constitutes a situation where abortion is permitted and abortion will only be done if the situation falls under the guidelines.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 1:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/6/2019 12:54:00 PM (view original):
Charities will never be an effective stand in for a social safety net.

Programs like social security and medicare are universally popular. The ACA is universally popular. People want to know that they aren't one bad step away from complete ruin. It's an essential function of government.

You're delusional if you think these are "universally popular". They're popular among the recipients. ACA is NOT universally popular. If you think it is, you're blind to reality.

We HAD to contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and, for the most part, IT'S OUR MONEY that we're "allowed" to reclaim once we get to ta certain age. I would've preferred to have the option to manage my own funds rather than have the government hang onto my money in a modified pyramid scheme. Of course, now that I'm old(er), I'm hoping I'm getting MY MONEY back as a supplementary income.

In CA, Social Security is only a useful nest egg if you already own your house. If you're still paying for a mortgage or rent in CA, you're basically screwed if your only income is from the government.

Look at the polling data. There's a reason no politicians push to cut social security or medicare. And if the ACA was so unpopular, the GOP could have wiped it out through reconciliation anytime in the last two years. But they didn't because people like have pre-existing coverage protection. If anything, health care is going to move FARTHER left.

Polling data and political gyrations do NOT = Universally popular (your words)

This is why people have trouble taking you or your debating skills seriously.

As I thought, the dems are not the party of compassion. My beliefs have been confirmed. There have been 3 democrats to opine and none are willing to stand up and fight for the helpless innocent. They are only worried about winning votes. They don't care about people. Thank you. Have a nice day. Tomorrow's topic will be much lighter. I promise.

You realize it's the opposite also.


Once the baby is born, conservatives give zero ***** about it getting proper schooling, proper nourishment, proper health care....etc.


10 year old cancer survivor used as a Donald Trump prop last night.....over 20 times the GOP in the room voted to take away her health care. So much compassion.