• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baby with Zika-linked birth defect dies in Texas

Moon said:
How is it hypocritical?
Click to expand...

Because you're totally fine with bill addons specifically intended to kill a bill when it's the Republicans doing it.
 
Moon said:
My bad, you're correct. The House passed a bill, but it was blocked by Senate Democrats, not Obama.
Click to expand...

WTF? Republicans wanted to tag onto the Zita Funding bill riders, crap that had nothing to do with anything except their own conservative agenda: "Senate Democrats refused to support House Republican additions to the legislation that would reduce funding for Planned Parenthood, defund parts of the Affordable Care Act and reversed a ban on flying Confederate flags in military cemeteries."

That is the kind of double-dealing, imbecilic **** that the American people are sick to death of. Take off the self-serving, irrelevant riders, and fund a disease that is poised to decimate families and their unborn babies. What kind of selfish sociopaths hold the health and lives of their citizens hostage to their own political agenda??
 
DiAnna said:
WTF? Republicans wanted to tag onto the Zita Funding bill riders, crap that had nothing to do with anything except their own conservative agenda: "Senate Democrats refused to support House Republican additions to the legislation that would reduce funding for Planned Parenthood, defund parts of the Affordable Care Act and reversed a ban on flying Confederate flags in military cemeteries."

That is the kind of double-dealing, imbecilic **** that the American people are sick to death of. Take off the self-serving, irrelevant riders, and fund a disease that is poised to decimate families and their unborn babies. What kind of selfish sociopaths hold the health and lives of their citizens hostage to their own political agenda??
Click to expand...

I think you just answered your own question.
 
Moon said:
My bad, you're correct. The House passed a bill, but it was blocked by Senate Democrats, not Obama.
Click to expand...

Did the bill have a poison pill in it? Anyway, I think Obama is redirecting some funding to zika.
 
Henrin said:
It's always the same with liberals. What can we throw money towards? I know, there is this this disease that killed one person. Lets throw the money towards that!
Click to expand...

I think it's the public demanding that congress do something about zika. After all, conservatives have babies, too.

But...there might be some truth in not over funding zika. Because by the time they find a vaccine...the virus might die down or disappear on it's own like the west nile virus and other virus outbreaks did in the past. And the prevailing theory is that once people get the zika virus they will develop life long immunity. So if they eradicate the mosquitos...they might be preventing people from getting inoculated and put future young mothers at more risk than if they had gotten zika when they were young girls.

Why the Zika outbreak might end with a whimper and other FAQs | PBS NewsHour
 
Deuce said:
Uhh, they can fund agencies that respond to the virus.
Click to expand...

You mean like how the DEA has "responded" to drugs, or how the EPA has "responded" to fracking, or how the SEC "responded" to Madoff? :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
You mean like how the DEA has "responded" to drugs, or how the EPA has "responded" to fracking, or how the SEC "responded" to Madoff? :lol:
Click to expand...

No I'm thinking more like how they responded to polio.
 
Incidentally, can we stop calling this a disease that has "killed one person?"

It has killed more than that. Oh, and the Surgeon General says an estimated one in four people in Puerto Rico will have been infected by the end of the year.
 
Deuce said:
No I'm thinking more like how they responded to polio.
Click to expand...

Did the government respond to polio, or did Jonas Salk and a few other scientists respond to polio? Or did both?

I'm not against government Deuce, in fact I'm very much for it. But I have understood for years that government can do only so much. It is not omnipotent, and too many times its actions cause more trouble than good.
 
spud_meister said:
Libertarians are for killing babies.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Most Libertarians want tax money to be spent wisely, and for people not to be overly-taxed. However, Randists and anarcho-Capitalists want government completely out of the picture, which is a pretty extreme view for me. If there is an earthquake in California, or a killer hurricane in Florida, I want my tax dollars to pay for aid. Same goes for the zika virus. Zika is a very serious threat, and if it takes throwing money at the problem to save lives, then let's throw money at the problem.

Selfishness is not necessarily a bad trait, but it can very much be taken to extreme. One example is WWII. Hitler had conquered Europe, and Japan had conquered much of Asia, and we still did nothing until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. It ended costing a whole lot of American lives when it didn't need to, had we intervened earlier. But, again, selfishness reared it's ugly head. Something similar is happening with our infrastructure. Several bridges have collapsed now, the most famous example being the one in Minnesota. Here in Houston, a piece of an overpass fell to the freeway a few years ago, landing on a car, killing a passenger, and seriously injuring the driver. Once more, selfish interests are delaying doing the upgrades that are desperately needed to our roads and bridges. So yes, although I have Libertarian leanings, I diverge on this point from the Randists. We need taxes to do these repairs. And, again, we need to put tax money towards fighting zika, which is a public health hazard worse than anything else we have seen in a while. Are we so selfish that we are willing to see our country reduced to third world nation status through neglect?
 
Why on Earth would you deliberately get pregnant if you lived in an area where the Zika virus exists...other then being stupid and/or selfish?

You cannot wait a few years for a cure before you try and get pregnant?

It's not like you are going to drop dead if you don't have a baby.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Not necessarily. Most Libertarians want tax money to be spent wisely, and for people not to be overly-taxed. However, Randists and anarcho-Capitalists want government completely out of the picture, which is a pretty extreme view for me. If there is an earthquake in California, or a killer hurricane in Florida, I want my tax dollars to pay for aid. Same goes for the zika virus. Zika is a very serious threat, and if it takes throwing money at the problem to save lives, then let's throw money at the problem.

Selfishness is not necessarily a bad trait, but it can very much be taken to extreme. One example is WWII. Hitler had conquered Europe, and Japan had conquered much of Asia, and we still did nothing until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. It ended costing a whole lot of American lives when it didn't need to, had we intervened earlier. But, again, selfishness reared it's ugly head. Something similar is happening with our infrastructure. Several bridges have collapsed now, the most famous example being the one in Minnesota. Here in Houston, a piece of an overpass fell to the freeway a few years ago, landing on a car, killing a passenger, and seriously injuring the driver. Once more, selfish interests are delaying doing the upgrades that are desperately needed to our roads and bridges. So yes, although I have Libertarian leanings, I diverge on this point from the Randists. We need taxes to do these repairs. And, again, we need to put tax money towards fighting zika, which is a public health hazard worse than anything else we have seen in a while. Are we so selfish that we are willing to see our country reduced to third world nation status through neglect?
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree with you there, I am afraid.

I believe Japan had only attacked China when Pearl Harbor happened. They only took most of their eventual conquered territories after Pearl Harbor. And intervening in China would have just involved America in a gigantic quagmire when she was not prepared.
As for Europe? There is no evidence that Germany could have conquered the Soviet Union AND lots of evidence that the U.S.S.R. would have conquered Germany all by herself eventually. Plus as long as Hitler was desperately fighting in the East, they had no chance of conquering England.
Meanwhile America was making lots of dough being the Arsenal of Democracy and selling arms to Stalin and Britain. What possible reason would America have for intervening (other then being a nice thing to do)?
If Pearl Harbor had never happened, America could have just sat back and developed the A bomb and the B-36 to deliver it and then - if she wanted to - force a quick end to the war by destroying a half dozen Japanese/German cities while costing minimal American lives.

Even as it was, America's human losses were far less then the other major combatants, her cities were untouched by air raids, she profited MASSIVELY from the war and when it was all over, she was the undisputed, most powerful country in the world.

No, I think America handled the whole thing very well overall...all things considered.
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
Did the government respond to polio, or did Jonas Salk and a few other scientists respond to polio? Or did both?

I'm not against government Deuce, in fact I'm very much for it. But I have understood for years that government can do only so much. It is not omnipotent, and too many times its actions cause more trouble than good.
Click to expand...

I have understood for years that anarchy is bad. I'm not against limiting government, Thoreau72, but eliminating government just doesn't work.
 
Deuce said:
I have understood for years that anarchy is bad. I'm not against limiting government, Thoreau72, but eliminating government just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I'm all for limiting government. That was the driving spirit of the US Constitution--enumerated powers. Sufficient power, but limited, with the spirit of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments well respected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom