• 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!

Are people who wants to defund Planned Parenthood anti-women?

Are people who want to defund PP anti-women?


  • Total voters
    51
So you are opposed to the cuts in health care proposed by the GOP? Do you realize how many pregnancies PP helps prevent?
I'm sorry. I missed this. Cuts in health care? Certainly not! More health care spending. But spending more smartly. Our health care system works just fine and I ought to know about that more than most people, I've needed good health care a lot and gotten it always.

If PP helps prevent the the creation of an embryo then they're not completely useless at all. I think contraception is a good thing. But they should provide those services by a organization called "Help for Couples:" and not at planned parenthood which just has a bad name. There are protesters. ewww. I'm not going in there!

Like ACORN should probably start calling itself "Neighborhood Housing Services"
 
I have not heard of the GOP proposals to provide something better for women's health services than PP, all I've heard about is their intention to cut funding for woman's health services.

Do you have a link to this proposal?

Don't ask this question. It always frustrates those on the pro-life side because they have no plan. If they had one, I'd imagine there would be quite a few who would listen. I know I would.

And here is the rub. I doubt that ANYONE, even pro-choicers, would have a problem IF there was a viable, workable, alternative plan to not just PP but also to abortion itself. I know for damn sure that I wouldn't. As CC says, without a plan all that would happen is far more problems occuring by the current stance than if there was a decent/good plan to implement to take the current systems place.
 
I keep hearing how the act of defunding PP is anti-women. Do you believe this is true?

Why is it that if you are one thing you are AUTOMATICALLY the worst of that? If some finks are fanks than all fanks are finks? Everyone remembers these kinda questions from school and everyone remembers, at least those that got it right, that the answer to that is false. So if I'm anti-PP then automatically I hate that women have rights.
 
And here is the rub. I doubt that ANYONE, even pro-choicers, would have a problem IF there was a viable, workable, alternative plan to not just PP but also to abortion itself. I know for damn sure that I wouldn't. As CC says, without a plan all that would happen is far more problems occuring by the current stance than if there was a decent/good plan to implement to take the current systems place.

I agree that there is not really a viable alternative to abortion other than staying out of bed and taking the appropriate things, for lack of a better word. That being said, people that just love to sleep around and don't do anything to thwart becoming pregnant should not be allowed to have multiple abortions just because they are too lazy to do anything to keep from becoming pregnant. It's extremely immoral.

Instead, it should be made easier for the people that want to adopt to be able to do so. As it stands, it's pretty difficult.
 
Calling those who wish to stop funding PP as anti-woman is like calling those who support PP racist. I am against federal funding of an institution that promotes a way of life many Americans are opposed to. There are a number of citizens who do not support contraceptions and I think it is a shame their hard earned tax dollars have to fund something that goes against their values.

Also, for the people who voted yes, it seems quite presumptuous and close-minded to assume the reasoning behind someone else's beliefs.
 
Calling those who wish to stop funding PP as anti-woman is like calling those who support PP racist. I am against federal funding of an institution that promotes a way of life many Americans are opposed to. There are a number of citizens who do not support contraceptions and I think it is a shame their hard earned tax dollars have to fund something that goes against their values.

Also, for the people who voted yes, it seems quite presumptuous and close-minded to assume the reasoning behind someone else's beliefs.

Then I want my Iraq war money back.
 
I find people amusing who only care about the health of people before they are born. They tend to be the same people who want to cut the health programs for those that have already been born.

Did you ever consider there is more than one issue at hand? Did you ever consider that funding for peoples healthcare is not something I consider something I should pay for? Did you ever consider that its not constitutional? Did you ever consider I want people to be dependent on themselves and not me? Did you ever consider I want to keep more of what I earn for myself? Did you ever consider that a strong society is an independent society? Did you ever consider that allowing the government to provide everything in our lives makes us dependent on them? Did you ever consider that by doing so it causes us to lose our freedom? Did you ever consider that government is about shared interests and not the idea of other people paying for your interests? Did you ever consider that social programs cause rifts in society and enemies of the classes? Did you ever consider that social programs allow people to justify hating success? Did you ever consider that those programs are unfair to the people that pay for them? Did you ever consider that abortion is about life and responsibly?
 
I'm sorry. I missed this. Cuts in health care? Certainly not! More health care spending. But spending more smartly. Our health care system works just fine and I ought to know about that more than most people, I've needed good health care a lot and gotten it always.

If PP helps prevent the the creation of an embryo then they're not completely useless at all. I think contraception is a good thing. But they should provide those services by a organization called "Help for Couples:" and not at planned parenthood which just has a bad name. There are protesters. ewww. I'm not going in there!

Like ACORN should probably start calling itself "Neighborhood Housing Services"

I don't see how the name changes would help anything.
 
And here is the rub. I doubt that ANYONE, even pro-choicers, would have a problem IF there was a viable, workable, alternative plan to not just PP but also to abortion itself. I know for damn sure that I wouldn't. As CC says, without a plan all that would happen is far more problems occuring by the current stance than if there was a decent/good plan to implement to take the current systems place.

Not sure I've heard anyone say they have anything better than PP. Planned Parenthood returns $10 in services for each government $1 investment. How do you top that?
 
I don't see how the name changes would help anything.

All of kind of things have done it in the past to run away from a bad image. As long as people aren't aware it used to be PP it would work fine.
 
I don't think they care and it's more of a number. It isnt anti or pro anything. I think if you take out the abortion portion they should keep the service as it is invaluable to Americans as tax payers as well.
 
Did you ever consider there is more than one issue at hand? Did you ever consider that funding for peoples healthcare is not something I consider something I should pay for?

I consider helping my fellow Americans a higher priority than personal greed. But that's just me.
Did you ever consider that its not constitutional?

It has been determined to be constitutional for decades without a successful challenge through M/M.

Did you ever consider I want people to be dependent on themselves and not me? Did you ever consider I want to keep more of what I earn for myself?

Yes, I am well aware of personal greed. However, PP save us money by preventing pregnancies and health screenings.

Did you ever consider that a strong society is an independent society?

You cannot have an strong society where health care is unaffordable for one sixth of the population.

Did you ever consider that allowing the government to provide everything in our lives makes us dependent on them?

I don't know anyone that has the government provide everything for them. I don't see many rich people giving away their riches so they can become poor to take advantage of the great deal that poor people have going for them, have you? If so, please provide a link to show me.

Did you ever consider that by doing so it causes us to lose our freedom?

What loss of freedom? What freedom did our parents and grandparents lose by supporting the social programs for 80 years that provided the strongest middle class in our history?

Did you ever consider that government is about shared interests and not the idea of other people paying for your interests?

Then I want my Iraq money back as the lady said above.

Did you ever consider that social programs cause rifts in society and enemies of the classes?

Please point out the rifts in society present during the 80 years of progressive social programs until they were slashed by Reagan, when the class warfare against the middle class was begun.

Did you ever consider that social programs allow people to justify hating success?

So we had no successful people during the 80 years of our progressive social programs? That is a figment of your imagination.

Did you ever consider that those programs are unfair to the people that pay for them?

They get a $10 dollar return on each $1 invested. Seems more than fair to me.

Did you ever consider that abortion is about life and responsibly?

No federal taxes go to fund abortions.
 
I consider helping my fellow Americans a higher priority than personal greed. But that's just me.
I consider freedom and responsibility the roots of the society. But that is just me. Your argument is meaningless as you have no idea as to what is actually important.

It has been determined to be constitutional for decades without a successful challenge through M/M.

So? They believe the welfare clause like yourself gives power. Their opinion means nothing to the meat of the argument as they haven't a clue.

Yes, I am well aware of personal greed. However, PP save us money by preventing pregnancies and health screenings.

How does it save me money when without your programs I would pretty much pay nothing for these people?

You cannot have an strong society where health care is unaffordable for one sixth of the population.

How does this support your stance? We can't have a strong society when people aren't accountable for themselves. You fail.

I don't know anyone that has the government provide everything for them.

Do you want a free house? Do you want free food? Do you want free healthcare? Do you want free transportation? Do you want free education? Do you want the government to provide what you say you need? Remember FDR wanted healthcare and housing and food. All of which is pretty much everything in life that you work to gain.

I don't see many rich people giving away their riches so they can become poor to take advantage of the great deal that poor people have going for them, have you? If so, please provide a link to show me.

I'm sorry, do you think people save money for retirement the way they should or do you think they spend more because social security will be there for them? Answer honestly if you can manage.


What loss of freedom? What freedom did our parents and grandparents lose by supporting the social programs for 80 years that provided the strongest middle class in our history?

Theft is loss of freedom. The results of allowing the government to control your health is loss of freedom. I can go on if you wish. Do you wish it? If you dare mention that insurance does the same thing I will assume that you know of how insurance came to be.


Then I want my Iraq money back as the lady said above.

I'm sorry, how does that refute anything I Just said?

Please point out the rifts in society present during the 80 years of progressive social programs until they were slashed by Reagan, when the class warfare against the middle class was begun.

Do you enjoy that people get a million dollars when you don't? Are you ok with it or do you want some of what they got?

Aka the rift..enjoy.

So we had no successful people during the 80 years of our progressive social programs? That is a figment of your imagination.

Did I say there was no successful people? Can you quote it?


They get a $10 dollar return on each $1 invested. Seems more than fair to me.

Your claim makes no sense, furthermore, its not an investment if I'm forced to investment. Also since I don't literally get that money in my pocketbook I don't care for your argument.

No federal taxes go to fund abortions.

What was the sentence you quoted again? You do enjoy bringing up things that don't actually argue the points you quote, but its pretty useless.
 
Last edited:
I consider freedom and responsibility the roots of the society. But that is just me. Your argument is meaningless as you have no idea as to what is actually important.

A non-answer really. More of a talking point. Taxes are not taking any freedoms from ya.

So? They believe the welfare clause like yourself gives power. Their opinion means nothing to the meat of the argument as they haven't a clue.

So 80 years worth of Judges means nothing to you...got it.

How does it save me money when without your programs I would pretty much pay nothing for these people?

There are numerous ways. By prevention of pregnancies (IE contraception, education etc etc) there are less children born. Less children means less that the government has to pay for kids that end up on welfare or the foster care system or on medicaid. By getting early screenings for various diseases, std's etc etc you can catch them early on which gives a higher chance of success in curing them...which saves money as the later you catch a disease, std etc etc the more it takes to cure it/manage it which means more money is spent on it. These two examples are just the major ways of saving YOU money.

How does this support your stance? We can't have a strong society when people aren't accountable for themselves. You fail.

How do you have a strong society when half the population is either too sick to work or live in the streets? Who is an employer more likely to hire? The person in a home, or the person living on the streets? Is an employer more likely going to hire the healthy person...or the unhealthy person?

Today's society is not like it was two hundred years ago ya know. People can't just go find an unoccupied piece of land and settle it and grow/hunt for thier food anymore. Hell, you can't even go hunting anymore without having to get a license to kill a SPECIFIC type of animal, and even then you are limited to (normally) just shooting ONE animal...not to mention having to wait X amount of days/weeks before you can even get that gun that you buy...assuming that they just don't deny you owning a gun.

Do you want a free house? Do you want free food? Do you want free healthcare? Do you want free transportation? Do you want free education? Do you want the government to provide what you say you need? Remember FDR wanted healthcare and housing and food. All of which is pretty much everything in life that you work to gain.

No house is free to anyone. I've yet to see the government give away a house to anyone.

Free food? What you want people to starve to death? You want our country to be like 3rd world countries which has no welfare program and children literally are eating dirt just so that the hunger pangs will go away for a little while? Now I'll certainly agree with you that our current system is abused to hell and back...but moaning and crying about it as if we would be far better off without it period is just ignorance or of the type of greed that I would consider borderline criminal.

Free healthcare? Yeah...if you go to the emergency room and don't pay the bill I guess it is free. But what do you want? To just let people die?

Free transportation? I'm going to assume you're talking about buses for kids to go to school? In today's society it just makes sense considering it take both parents working to pay for thiers and thier childs needs. Not to mention not all parents have vehicles to take them to school.

Free education? What the hell is it that you think made this country strong? It was that free education that made it to where you are where you are today ya know. It is what made this country the super power that it is today. Every civilized country in the world today has free education. Compare these countries with those countries which has little to no government sponsored education...IE 3rd world countries.

I'm sorry, do you think people save money for retirement the way they should or do you think they spend more because social security will be there for them? Answer honestly if you can manage.

Typical avoidance tactic. Avoid answering the question by asking one of your own.


Theft is loss of freedom. The results of allowing the government to control your health is loss of freedom. I can go on if you wish. Do you wish it? If you dare mention that insurance does the same thing I will assume that you know of how insurance came to be.

Taxes are not theft. It is those taxes which keeps this country not only running but also defended.....which means your rights are protected from those that WOULD take away your actual rights. It is those taxes which pays for those roads that you drive on. It is those taxes which pays policemen to protect you. It is those taxes which pays the firemen to put out the fire in your kitchen. It is those taxes which keeps people off the streets, healthy and fed in order to keep them working...which keeps our society working.

Do you enjoy that people get a million dollars when you don't? Are you ok with it or do you want some of what they got?

Personally I could care less, sure it'd be nice...but I won't go begging for it. However I know of no government welfare type program which hands poor people a million dollars.

Aka the rift..enjoy.

There has been class warfare for thousands of years. People being on welfare is not the cause of it.

Your claim makes no sense, furthermore, its not an investment if I'm forced to investment. Also since I don't literally get that money in my pocketbook I don't care for your argument.

Actually his claim is a bit off. The actual amount is for every dollar spent on PP the government saves four. But in anycase mayhap you should think about it. Use your critical thinking skills here. But here's a hint...its already been answered in this post.

What was the sentence you quoted again? You do enjoy bringing up things that don't actually argue the points you quote, but its pretty useless.

Considering the thread is about FUNDING his reply to you was quite valid. Ya know...given the whole context of the thread and all. ;)
 
I don't see how the name changes would help anything.

The conservatives despise Planned Parenhood and ACORN. Loathe them. Is that a good thing in any way? Does that help either organization?

Or does it cause them a lot of grief.?

There is nothing either of them could do change their reputation. So abandon the names. Simple.
 
A non-answer really. More of a talking point. Taxes are not taking any freedoms from ya.

Ask anyone that loves freedom and they will tell you that paying for something they have no interest to pay for and is not for them is taking their freedom to spend their money on what they want. The fact is facts look like talking points to the people not in the know.

So 80 years worth of Judges means nothing to you...got it.

80 years of progressive judges, yes, means nothing to me. They're either dead fools, or alive fools and either way they're fools.

There are numerous ways. By prevention of pregnancies (IE contraception, education etc etc) there are less children born. Less children means less that the government has to pay for kids that end up on welfare or the foster care system or on medicaid.

Sounds like you are proving my point.

By getting early screenings for various diseases, std's etc etc you can catch them early on which gives a higher chance of success in curing them...which saves money as the later you catch a disease, std etc etc the more it takes to cure it/manage it which means more money is spent on it. These two examples are just the major ways of saving YOU money.

How does it save me money if those programs are unconstitutional and if people should have to treat their own problems? What is actually happening is progressive ways to fix a problem has made the connections in society painful for all.

How do you have a strong society when half the population is either too sick to work or live in the streets? Who is an employer more likely to hire? The person in a home, or the person living on the streets? Is an employer more likely going to hire the healthy person...or the unhealthy person?

Why is half the population in the streets dieing and where can I go and see it?

Today's society is not like it was two hundred years ago ya know. People can't just go find an unoccupied piece of land and settle it and grow/hunt for thier food anymore. Hell, you can't even go hunting anymore without having to get a license to kill a SPECIFIC type of animal, and even then you are limited to (normally) just shooting ONE animal...not to mention having to wait X amount of days/weeks before you can even get that gun that you buy...assuming that they just don't deny you owning a gun.

Not sure of your point here, sorry. How does this get back to what I said?


No house is free to anyone. I've yet to see the government give away a house to anyone.

Australia gives people houses. It results in drug addicts getting homes, destroying them and then asking for another home. Look up public housing in Australia if you wish to find out more. Btw, free housing was in second new deal which FDR was pushing when he died, which was revoked by congress after his death and never went anywhere.

Free food? What you want people to starve to death? You want our country to be like 3rd world countries which has no welfare program and children literally are eating dirt just so that the hunger pangs will go away for a little while? Now I'll certainly agree with you that our current system is abused to hell and back...but moaning and crying about it as if we would be far better off without it period is just ignorance or of the type of greed that I would consider borderline criminal.

Do I want them to starve? I want to have a choice if I want to feed them. Get some perspective.

Free healthcare? Yeah...if you go to the emergency room and don't pay the bill I guess it is free. But what do you want? To just let people die?

I want a service to be treated like a service, not a right that the people that provide it are slaves to the people that need their service. If they need it they can pay for it or figure out a way to do so. That is all I'm saying on it.

Free transportation? I'm going to assume you're talking about buses for kids to go to school? In today's society it just makes sense considering it take both parents working to pay for thiers and thier childs needs. Not to mention not all parents have vehicles to take them to school.

I was more talking about trains and such, but yes buses for children works as well, but than I'm against public schooling so its kind of implied by that view.

Free education? What the hell is it that you think made this country strong? It was that free education that made it to where you are where you are today ya know.

No its not..

It is what made this country the super power that it is today. Every civilized country in the world today has free education. Compare these countries with those countries which has little to no government sponsored education...IE 3rd world countries.

Capitalism is what made us great, freedom is what made us great. It was what made society as far back as Greece and Rome great. What has destroyed society's since those time however is social programs and over reaching government like we have.

Typical avoidance tactic. Avoid answering the question by asking one of your own.

Do people save money for retirement the way that they should or are they dependent. It wasn't an avoidance tactic it is part of my entire point of the series of posts.

Taxes are not theft. It is those taxes which keeps this country not only running but also defended.....which means your rights are protected from those that WOULD take away your actual rights. It is those taxes which pays for those roads that you drive on. It is those taxes which pays policemen to protect you. It is those taxes which pays the firemen to put out the fire in your kitchen.

Fires should be left for the market and roads are not needed. Police however are best handled by the government. Taxes are good when handling things like national security but theft when handling personal interests of individual persons.

It is those taxes which keeps people off the streets, healthy and fed in order to keep them working...which keeps our society working.

You could do just as much yourself, just like I could. We don't need government to keep people off the streets.

Personally I could care less, sure it'd be nice...but I won't go begging for it. However I know of no government welfare type program which hands poor people a million dollars.

Not my point. People are angry because CEO's make millions of dollars or even billions and to the most part only because they aren't earning that much.

There has been class warfare for thousands of years. People being on welfare is not the cause of it.

The mindset is the problem. Welfare programs just strength that mindset in the people. That mindset is a cancer on society and as you have just said has been for thousands of years. Its about time we as species gets past it.

Actually his claim is a bit off. The actual amount is for every dollar spent on PP the government saves four. But in anycase mayhap you should think about it. Use your critical thinking skills here. But here's a hint...its already been answered in this post.

Why should I care?

Considering the thread is about FUNDING his reply to you was quite valid. Ya know...given the whole context of the thread and all. ;)

Considering that most things people take like the morning after pill kill of pregnancy I would say you know my answer to if they actually fund for it or not.
 
Last edited:
The conservatives despise Planned Parenhood and ACORN. Loathe them. Is that a good thing in any way? Does that help either organization?

Or does it cause them a lot of grief.?

There is nothing either of them could do change their reputation. So abandon the names. Simple.

ahem..Acorn has actually changed the name of its some of its branches after the last problem came up.

Is that going to avoid the problem however? Hardly. I know about it and many other people that hate Acorn know about it and in time everyone will. It will give them sweet dreams for a moment but in time they will just be right back where they are. In time, bad ideas that are pushed are generally found with great ease.
 
ahem..Acorn has actually changed the name of its some of its branches after the last problem came up.

Is that going to avoid the problem however? Hardly. I know about it and many other people that hate Acorn know about it and in time everyone will. It will give them sweet dreams for a moment but in time they will just be right back where they are. In time, bad ideas that are pushed are generally found with great ease.

They have? Ok I made a couple of calls.

It's just too easy to change a name and move on.. Only the people needing help matter,
 
I keep hearing how the act of defunding PP is anti-women. Do you believe this is true?

No, but I do believe they are single issue idealogues who often put ideaology over praticality and in the end hurt people more than is neccessary. But that doesn't mean they're anti-women.
 
I say no. People who want PP defunded believe so not because they are anti-women, but pro-children.

I didn't go through the responses and so this may be redundant, but I wanted you to know that this is not true for at least me. I am pro-choice generally from a legal standpoint (against abortion from a moral standpoint) and I want PP to be de-government-funded. I DO hope that if it is defunded, private contributions will be able to maintain their services though. I just don't think it's the government's place to fund PP.
 
I said

Oh..crap, I don't know why we are even bothering discussing it. It will not happen as long as Obama is in office. Planned Parenthood helped get him elected and he's not about to let them down now, so close to 2012.

Catawa asked
How did PP help get Obama elected?
I stand by,
As long as Obama's in office PP will continue to get federal funds. It won't matter if we find thousands of born alive aborted babies in their dumpsters. Obama needs them.




YouTube - Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Barack Obama - Planned Parenthood Action Center

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the political and advocacy arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, today announced its endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president of the United States.
This marks only the second time in Planned Parenthood's history that the Action Fund has made an endorsement in a presidential campaign. Last month, the board of the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund voted unanimously to recommend endorsing Senator Obama. That recommendation was ratified by Planned Parenthood's local action organizations, which represent the interests of all 100 Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Obama pledged to Planned Parenthood: "I will not yield" to pro-life concerns :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)
In the July 17 speech, Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban and the nomination of Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade. In the speech the senator said, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue,
I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield
."
Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood - Political Radar
ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.
"
We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."
Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
 
I consider freedom and responsibility the roots of the society.

Me too, but for all Americans.


So? They believe the welfare clause like yourself gives power. Their opinion means nothing to the meat of the argument as they haven't a clue.

Only for those of us that believe in the rule of law then I suppose.



How does it save me money when without your programs I would pretty much pay nothing for these people?

By reducing health care costs later in life. Throwing people to the streets is not an option.



How does this support your stance? We can't have a strong society when people aren't accountable for themselves. You fail.

We are only as strong as the weakest among us. When all Americans are stronger and healthier, so is our country.



Do you want a free house? Do you want free food? Do you want free healthcare? Do you want free transportation? Do you want free education? Do you want the government to provide what you say you need? Remember FDR wanted healthcare and housing and food. All of which is pretty much everything in life that you work to gain.

I have a house, food, healthcare, transportation, and education. My concern is for those less fortunate who do not.


I'm sorry, do you think people save money for retirement the way they should or do you think they spend more because social security will be there for them? Answer honestly if you can manage.

I think there are many who cannot manage due to various circumstances mostly not in their control.






Theft is loss of freedom. The results of allowing the government to control your health is loss of freedom. I can go on if you wish. Do you wish it? If you dare mention that insurance does the same thing I will assume that you know of how insurance came to be.

What theft? I believe in the rule of law.




I'm sorry, how does that refute anything I Just said?

Many of us have to contribute to things we don't believe in like the war for oil in Iraq.



Do you enjoy that people get a million dollars when you don't? Are you ok with it or do you want some of what they got?

I don't want what they have but I expect them to pay their fair share just like the middle class does.
Did I say there was no successful people? Can you quote it?

You said,
Did you ever consider that social programs allow people to justify hating success?

I saw none of that during the 80 years of the social programs that created the strongest middle class in our history.





Your claim makes no sense, furthermore, its not an investment if I'm forced to investment. Also since I don't literally get that money in my pocketbook I don't care for your argument.

You seem to be under the notion that our only committments are to our own personal greed. If we want a strong country we have to consider the needs of everyone, not just our own.
 
Hey, no arguments here. I wish that money had never been spent or at least have been spent on domestic programs...

The constitution calls for the government to provide for our defense. You may argue that we are in wars that we shouldn't be in, but taking tax payer dollars to pay for them is still constitutional.
I'm not so sure about the funding of PP, NPR, PBS, NEA.
 
Back
Top Bottom