(07-26-2015 05:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Oh, so the government is only good when it rules for the Liberal viewpoint, like gay marriage. Hmm, interesting. Oh, by the way Robbie you're a hater for insulting Defconn. How would you like it if he called you gay slurs?

Well knowing Little Bobby, he'd probably run to the Mods to have me shut down. Or, get them to give me a stern talking to.

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:44 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I've never understood how democrats can be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion at the same time.

No one is pro abortion.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant pro-choice. Which is exactly the same thing as pro-abortion.

Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

So you are all for the government being out of your life when you want to kill a baby, but demand big government insert its dominance for everything else?

(07-26-2015 06:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is pro abortion.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant pro-choice. Which is exactly the same thing as pro-abortion.

Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

So you are all for the government being out of your life when you want to kill a baby, but demand big government insert its dominance for everything else?

Good to see the 'ole nothing or everything argument is still alive in kicking among those not interested in having an actual discussion with another person and instead just looking to take wholly untrue potshots at those they disagree with.

(07-26-2015 06:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Oh I'm sorry, I meant pro-choice. Which is exactly the same thing as pro-abortion.

Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

So you are all for the government being out of your life when you want to kill a baby, but demand big government insert its dominance for everything else?

Good to see the 'ole nothing or everything argument is still alive in kicking among those not interested in having an actual discussion with another person and instead just looking to take wholly untrue potshots at those they disagree with.

That's rich coming from someone who's never had an actual discussion here without taking wholly untrue potshots towards the poster you're conversing with.

(07-26-2015 01:37 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Not surprised. It is a fairly sophisticated position.

In its simplest form, Republicans believe that if a child is not aborted it has a chance to live a useful and successful life. We also believe that the nanny state does more harm than good when it comes to adults learning to be self sufficient and capable of achievement. The nanny state leads to dependency.

Hope that helps.

How does a child have a useful and successful life when it is unwanted by the mother and republicans don't want the government to step in and help?

Adoption by a Republican family.

Oh, and as an aside, your post is implying that abortion is now an acceptable form of birth control. Cool.

No I'm not. I'm 100 precent against abortion. I'm just wondering what would happen to all of those unwanted kids of it were illegal. Republicans attitudes toward social programs tells me that it would end well for many of those kids.

(07-26-2015 07:34 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 06:26 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

So you are all for the government being out of your life when you want to kill a baby, but demand big government insert its dominance for everything else?

Good to see the 'ole nothing or everything argument is still alive in kicking among those not interested in having an actual discussion with another person and instead just looking to take wholly untrue potshots at those they disagree with.

That's rich coming from someone who's never had an actual discussion here without taking wholly untrue potshots towards the poster you're conversing with.

That's simply untrue.

(07-26-2015 05:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Oh, so the government is only good when it rules for the Liberal viewpoint, like gay marriage. Hmm, interesting. Oh, by the way Robbie you're a hater for insulting Defconn. How would you like it if he called you gay slurs?

Given that I am not gay, I would just laugh. As for the rest of it, I can say the same about you for the Republican viewpoints.

I insulted Defconn? I have to go back and see what I said because I don't remember doing so. Ah. guess I did.

(07-26-2015 06:20 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:27 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:03 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:55 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is pro abortion.

Oh I'm sorry, I meant pro-choice. Which is exactly the same thing as pro-abortion.

Wrong, pro-choice is when you call to arrange for an abortion, you are given the choice of a morning or afternoon appointment.

Stupid post but not surprising from you. Most people that are pro-choice believe it is up to a woman/couple to decide and not the the government. These people may also not ever consider having abortions.

Epically stupid response, but not surprising coming from a self-admitted troll such as yourself. Most people who're pro-choice are pro-abortion.

Disagree. I would prefer that people use adoptions. Of course, I think birth control (pill, condoms) and education is the best way to decrease the number of abortions. I believe most pro-choice people feel this way.

(07-26-2015 06:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:32 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Oh, so the government is only good when it rules for the Liberal viewpoint, like gay marriage. Hmm, interesting. Oh, by the way Robbie you're a hater for insulting Defconn. How would you like it if he called you gay slurs?

Well knowing Little Bobby, he'd probably run to the Mods to have me shut down. Or, get them to give me a stern talking to.

I don't run to the mods. I get a laugh reading your posts. Why would I want you gone?

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

The idea that people should be responsible for themselves evidently is not one liberals embrace.

(07-26-2015 01:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Not surprised. It is a fairly sophisticated position.

In its simplest form, Republicans believe that if a child is not aborted it has a chance to live a useful and successful life. We also believe that the nanny state does more harm than good when it comes to adults learning to be self sufficient and capable of achievement. The nanny state leads to dependency.

Hope that helps.

How does a child have a useful and successful life when it is unwanted by the mother and republicans don't want the government to step in and help?

Last time I checked...There are plenty of couples willing to adopt unwanted children. If we reduced the amount of red tape and payola of the adoption system there would be even more. I know this first hand after looking into it. I refused to allow the amount of governmental prying into my family that it would have taken to adopt.

Quote:Why I’m a liberal? I believe you can have freedom and care about reducing income inequality. I believe you can have liberty and smaller soda sizes. I believe you can be throw off tyranny and still have a smarter health care system that delivers care to more people. I’m a liberal because even though conservatives and libertarians can sometimes come up with good ideas to address these problems, mostly you sense they’d rather not be bothered. Which leaves good old-fashioned Big Government as the most likely option to actually fix stuff.

This is an instructive quote IMO, because in his opinion is that the forceful elimination of choice via government is the only way to address the problems he highlights.

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.

(07-26-2015 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:58 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  There is a waiting of couples who want to adopt. Many have to go to agencies abroad to adopt because it takes so long here. The demand is much higher than the supply.

Adoption is a truly amazing process if viewed in economic terms. You have excess supply, excess demand, and minimal transactions. I have thought for a long time that the pro-life crowd would achieve a lot more if they would focus their still substantial political muscle on the issue of making adoption a more common and straightforward process. There is no need for one child to be living in a foster home so long as there are willing adoptive parents still waiting for a child.

Of course, this approach would almost certainly require acceptance of same-sex couples as adoptive parents. To those who oppose that, I have a simple question--would the child be better off being aborted?

It's not that straight forward. There is an excess demand for babies. That's the best way of ensuring you don't have psychologically "damaged goods". I hate to phrase it that way but if you want to compare it strictly economically speaking that's the most fair way of putting it. There is an excess supply of older kids, sick kids or kids with a lot of emotional baggage. 90% of these later kids were put into the system later. These kids take very special people to adopt them.

A lot of the folks looking into adoption as a solution for infertility REALLY want a baby.

But if abortion were to become illegal, I doubt that charities or adoption would be able to handle the increase. Our social programs would collapse.

(07-27-2015 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if abortion were to become illegal, I doubt that charities or adoption would be able to handle the increase. Our social programs would collapse.

I thought about this and I have to admit, you're probably right.

The first couple of years, all the adoption applications would likely be filled. Then what?

So let's get back to the original thread, the whole nanny state concept.

I believe that the (compassionate) conservative position is that there are certain levels public welfare services that are necessary. I also believe that many of these programs have grown far beyond their intended usefulness and have created a new class of entitlement families. For example, are 50 million food stamp families really needed? How many of the new disabled class are truly disabled? (SSI recipients have tripled since 1980.)

Remember it was Bill Clinton who was President when welfare had its first reformation.

As someone who treats patients who are part of the nanny state (medicaid) I can tell you that they're the unhealthiest population that I see.

I hope that article was just click-bait. It worked on me I guess. Though if no one had posted it in the first place we'd all be better off.

(07-27-2015 01:03 PM)dfarr Wrote:  As someone who treats patients who are part of the nanny state (medicaid) I can tell you that they're the unhealthiest population that I see.

Somehow it's the fault of middle-class white folks. I just know it.

(07-27-2015 08:42 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I've never understood how republicans can be pro life and anti nanny state at the same time.

Because some of us don't consider the State a charity.

You do not get moral credit for forcing money out of someone else's paycheck using the IRS' henchmen to pay for a bunch of social programs that don't work.

If you let good people have more of the money they work for, more money would go to charities that much more effectively serve the poor and less fortunate than these government handouts.