Obamacare is passed.....let the outrage

[LBJefferies]

Pro Lifers are nutcases. And Usually identified by all the pro life, jesus loves you, save the babies,etc, bumper stickers on their fucking cars.

You're a fucking idiot. Some pro-lifers may be nutcases but the pro-life viewpoint is not nutty. It makes a lot of sense actually. I just hate the pro-lifers who are so passionately against abortion but condone capital punishment and war.

[ALYKZANDYR]

You're a fucking idiot. Some pro-lifers may be nutcases but the pro-life viewpoint is not nutty. It makes a lot of sense actually. I just hate the pro-lifers who are so passionately against abortion but condone capital punishment and war.

i honestly beg to differ. They are part of the religious right. and the religious right are nut cases. I hate the religious right.

[markseven]

So again, using a Pro-life, which is not in ANY particular way simply "Christian" stand point, is putting the Church in Government power? How the hell do you even justify that one?

Markseven: THANK YOU! I was just looking for those statistics. I heard those a few months ago and it makes Left wingers really look like a bunch of idealistic mouth pieces that preach what they don't have any intention of backing up with action.

NP ;)

Pro Lifers are nutcases. And Usually identified by all the pro life, jesus loves you, save the babies,etc bumper stickers on their fucking cars.

Do you have kids?

[ALYKZANDYR]

No

[markseven]

No

Thought not...

[Hallen]

Just a funny contrast to me. You seem to rank locking people up as more important than saving starving children.


Isn't providing health care to those in need a form of protection?
Protection from disease?
Protection from suffering?


It's my position that no one in the U.S. should starve, yes. I'm not a proponent of giving handouts, but I am in favor of helping those (especially children) who do not have the basic means to survive. I'm not so generous that I donate sums of money to charity--but I do tend to vote for the candidates that are more likely to help those less fortunate then me, even if it means that I'll be paying slightly more in taxes. I have said before, I am an opponent of the welfare system, but programs such as WIC, public healthcare, headstart, etc...I am in favor of. People like you always seem to think that as soon as any assistance is given to those in need, all of a sudden everyone is just going to stop working to abuse government handouts. The truth is, this country is full of many motivated people who will never stop working hard (partly because most government handouts suck ass).

Thanks for rereading and understanding. That's a good quality.

On starving, you misunderstood me again, mostly because I was being deliberately shocking. Of course I don't support letting children starve. And I have said multiple times that I support programs that give people a hand up. You asked if I thought starving was a form of population control, and, well, it is. But my main point is this: until people start taking responsibility for themselves and their families, we will continually have a large group of people who willingly let their children starve. A very small percentage of starving children in this country starve because their parents can't earn enough to put food on the table. They starve because daddy is not around and mom spends her money on cigarettes. That's irresponsible and although I have sympathy for the children, government doles only support that kind of irresponsibility. Plus, with all the government programs in place, there is no reason whatsoever for a child to ever starve in this country.

On the abortion thing, you do realize there is a difference between a murderer who willingly killed somebody compared to a baby that hasn't been born yet, right?

The position is very simple. Once the egg is fertilized (in other words, you busted a nut), that's a baby. It's alive. Terminating it for no other cause than the baby isn't wanted, is wrong. However, I don't actually support a ban on abortion. I think social and cultural pressure will eventually stop the practice except when it is a medical necessity. I also realize that other people don't consider it a baby at that point. At what point, exactly, they do think it is a baby and therefore is a human, I'm not quite sure. I know I'm not omnipotent enough to draw that line so I take the most conservative position. It isn't a religious position, it's one of logic.

I also find it very amusing that you seem so keen on keeping children from starving, yet you support killing babies that aren't wanted. I get mixed signals from that. And that is the problem with so many other liberal positions.

The others covered the points about donations. What you are basically saying is that you don't have the discipline to donate yourself so you want the government to do it for you. Of course, you drag me and everybody else with you when you vote that way.

[MFreak89]

On the abortion thing, you do realize there is a difference between a murderer who willingly killed somebody compared to a baby that hasn't been born yet, right?

The position is very simple. Once the egg is fertilized (in other words, you busted a nut), that's a baby. It's alive. Terminating it for no other cause than the baby isn't wanted, is wrong. However, I don't actually support a ban on abortion. I think social and cultural pressure will eventually stop the practice except when it is a medical necessity. I also realize that other people don't consider it a baby at that point. At what point, exactly, they do think it is a baby and therefore is a human, I'm not quite sure. I know I'm not omnipotent enough to draw that line so I take the most conservative position. It isn't a religious position, it's one of logic.

I agree, but still dont get why killing a baby is justified to some, then killing a criminal is not. I am a firm believer in cp; killers, rapist, etc all of them. Why lethal injection when rope is much cheaper.lol. There for cut a lot of money being spent of feeding and housing them, and used on something else like healthcare.

[ck_taft325is]

i honestly beg to differ. They are part of the religious right. and the religious right are nut cases. I hate the religious right.

This is complete Fail. By any form of logical deduction, you'd say that the far left is completely un-religious in every way then? To uphold or stand for a given set of morals that undisputedly is for the right thing and then derail it as 'religious right nut cases' just shows your immaturity and complete lack of nearly everything. You're so blinded by your own stupidity that you don't even know it. To also assert that everyone that is pro-life is simply pigeon holed into the "religious right nut cases" catagory is not only offensive, but incredible small minded, which I'm sure you'd say all "religious right" are. Am I correct? Funny how those laying claim that the religious right is intolerant are so ridiculously intolerant. If only your mother had done the smart thing from the begining and done as you seem so willing to embrace, we'd have one less asshole we would have to spend money on for "free" health care.

Know who else instituted Government sanctioned and paid for abortions? Hitler.

"When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.
Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East."
On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories.
Despite contemporary attempts to characterize Hitler as opposed to abortion, the historical evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports only one possible conclusion: Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn."

(http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id15.html)

[LBJefferies]

This is complete Fail. By any form of logical deduction, you'd say that the far left is completely un-religious in every way then? To uphold or stand for a given set of morals that undisputedly is for the right thing and then derail it as 'religious right nut cases' just shows your immaturity and complete lack of nearly everything. You're so blinded by your own stupidity that you don't even know it. To also assert that everyone that is pro-life is simply pigeon holed into the "religious right nut cases" catagory is not only offensive, but incredible small minded, which I'm sure you'd say all "religious right" are. Am I correct? Funny how those laying claim that the religious right is intolerant are so ridiculously intolerant. If only your mother had done the smart thing from the begining and done as you seem so willing to embrace, we'd have one less asshole we would have to spend money on for "free" health care.

Know who else instituted Government sanctioned and paid for abortions? Hitler.

"When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.
Further, a Nazi decree of October 19, 1941 established abortion on demand as the official policy of Poland. Hitler, however, expressed dissatisfaction with this policy. Abortion, he believed, should NOT be limited to Poland. He therefore ordered that abortion be expanded to all populations under the control of the "Ministry of the Occupied Territories of the East."
On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories.
Despite contemporary attempts to characterize Hitler as opposed to abortion, the historical evidence clearly and overwhelmingly supports only one possible conclusion: Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn."

(http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.co...tist/id15.html)

Hitler has nothing to do with abortion and the conversation at hand. Just because he condoned something, doesn't automatically make it wrong. He was also anti-smoking and a vegetarian, are these things wrong too?

With that said, I am pro-life. Abortion is killing a living person. It shouldn't be banned completely, but if you have one then there better be a damn good reason for doing so.

[ck_taft325is]

I don't see how him being anti-smoking has anything to do with your point. That said, I think it's very much relevant considering abortions will be included in the before mentioned health care bill. While it has been taken out several times, (note: SEVERAL times) it just keeps making it's way in there somehow. Also, in correlation to the "right wing religious nut cases" this is paramount to how we view Hitler. A nut case, correct? Totally off his rocker? Yet, pro-life is considered to be a total "religious nut case" thing. The above article is very relevant, in my opinion. Just because Christian's are for something, doesn't make it automatically wrong.

[MCAKES]

its really as simple as this as far as i am concerned. the government is here to provide us security. they do not decide what is good for us

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Define security is it

A: Provide protection form foreign aggressors, and try to keep as may criminals off the the street as possible??

Or

B: TO do all of the above plus, Give you shelter, food, a warm bed, heat,
electricity, free heath care, and some walking around money, to buy other shit with???


If you picked A then you would be correct, and that is how I feel on the subject as well so why didnt you say that in the 1st place. IF you instead went with B, you would be wrong as how this country was/is intended to be.

[Hallen]

One thing I find very humorous about the religious nut-case argument:

Obama is a lifelong church member.

1) Either he is religious, and therefore by the definitions many liberals hold, he is a nut-case. He believes in something that isn't real and unsupportable by evidence or logic. This makes all his decisions suspect.

2) He is completely disingenuous about his church participation. He's only doing it to appeal to groups of voters in order to get elected.

So, which is it? It can't be any other selection since these are the choices that are dictated by the political and social positions of a liberal in selection 1, and the selection 2 is dictated by logic. So, you either have a religious president, or you have a lying sack of shit who will do anything required to gain power. Your choice.

[markseven]

One thing I find very humorous about the religious nut-case argument:

Obama is a lifelong church member.

1) Either he is religious, and therefore by the definitions many liberals hold, he is a nut-case. He believes in something that isn't real and unsupportable by evidence or logic. This makes all his decisions suspect.

2) He is completely disingenuous about his church participation. He's only doing it to appeal to groups of voters in order to get elected.

So, which is it? It can't be any other selection since these are the choices that are dictated by the political and social positions of a liberal in selection 1, and the selection 2 is dictated by logic. So, you either have a religious president, or you have a lying sack of shit who will do anything required to gain power. Your choice.

#2. From what I've read, the left views Obama's Christianity as "politically expedient" and nothing more, therfore acceptable (!?!). Obama's actions support this, IMO.

[mrsleeve]

going with choice #2 from Hallen as well