Reply With Quote
Gov good hair is catering to his base.. it's ok for him to do it,... but God forbid Obama does it.. but then Gov good hair complains about obama doing it..
Speaker Joe Straus, who's been a thorn in the side of the TX Tea Party who claim he's a RINO, says Perry's remarks on Davis were inappropriate.
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/...avis-comments/
Gov good hair is catering to his base.. it's ok for him to do it,... but God forbid Obama does it.. but then Gov good hair complains about obama doing it..
A bit of humor re Wendy Davis's shoes:
http://www.amazon.com/Mizuno-Womens-...owViewpoints=1
How do you know they aren't? I for one would love a school choice or not have to pay for school taxes, and instead put that money into a private education. Because I feel it will better those children.
So someone not wanting a society that murders children has to also want government to provide free daycare, food, house, clothes, etc-through a taxes? I don't agree.
But does the government need to provide free false equivalence and strawmen?
If you want to go back to the 19th century then sure lets make education a privilege and not compulsory.
It's entertaining how so many so called conservatives have no concept of history. Laissez faire was tired and found to be inferior as demonstrated by 1850 to 1929. Hey let's go back to the time when we were an also ran internationally and only secure because of two oceans. Let's go back to a time of deplorable working and living conditions and a time that rivaled middle age serfdom in inequality.
Now we just need ig to tell us that that era wasn't laissez faire enough.
Yes, because we all know that without the government there would be no education. Or roads.
BTW the 190th century brought more people out of poverty than in the entire history of the world.
looking forward to it!
An educated populace provides stability and enormous economic benefit. If you think that the airway, highway, rail, or energy grid would exist to even the remotest extent absent huge government contribution then you are fooling yourself. This was true even 2000 years ago.
And all your assertion about poverty in the 19th century has indicated is that a laissez fair industrial republic is better then oligarchy, feudalism and despotism. Bravo. Then of course there was the destruction of the southern system of slavery and sharecropping that was destroyed during reconstruction.
The living conditions of that era especially in the cities is well do ented. The goal of civilization should be to improve and not resort back to previous failures. The idyllic utopia that is the supposed state of nature is ideological nonsense. Quite frankly its stupid.
Talk about strawmen...Are you refering to my comments? I said nothing about that.
As long as when they unfreeze me, I get my hovercar!
Your school taxes also go to help those that can't pay for education, private or otherwise. I understand you might not give a about those people, and would rather prioritize your own kids, but if that's the general at ude, we're going to end up with a fairly fractured society sooner rather than later.
How about addressing a typical case here: a 17 year old girl that's pregnant, poor family, has barely any education, now has to feed and raise a child. She wants to abort, but you'll have her have the child, and then you'll turn around and because she's too uneducated to get a good job, too poor to pay taxes, and she's likely going to get foodstamps, subsidized healthcare and education for her child. Will she eventually get ahead? maybe, maybe not. But at least her kid will be able to eat, go to school and get the same education as everyone else, and look at a brighter future.
What are you talking about can't pay for education? Are you saying if they could pay for education, you would be for them choosing where they want their kids to go? My objection is with people who have to pay for school district tax who's child doesn't go to that school. You are attacking me for being insensitive and only thinking about the best of my children. 1. That's inaccurate. I am thinking of society as a whole. It would be a better education, which would then be a better society. 2. You wanting to take money from one person to help another is not compassion. If you personally wanted to give money, then that would be another thing. You don't have a moral high ground because your solution gives more money (since it's not your money). We both want what's best for our society and country, just different views.
I'm not saying to cut any federal govt. money in this. Or state. I'm talking about school choice, voucher programs to private schools for low income parents and not taxing someone who isn't using their school. I think it would help middle class people being able to put their kids in a school they want. Too many of you all are trying to turn my comment into a strawman. Pulling a Aaron Sorkin: setting up your own argument to win from.
First off, that's not typical.How about addressing a typical case here: a 17 year old girl that's pregnant, poor family, has barely any education, now has to feed and raise a child. She wants to abort, but you'll have her have the child, and then you'll turn around and because she's too uneducated to get a good job, too poor to pay taxes, and she's likely going to get foodstamps, subsidized healthcare and education for her child. Will she eventually get ahead? maybe, maybe not. But at least her kid will be able to eat, go to school and get the same education as everyone else, and look at a brighter future.
Secondly, that's so ridiculous to assume so much of me.
BTW I grew up poor. I doubt you did. My mom worked two jobs and my sister was a high school drop out and pregnant by 17. Many of my friends had children by 17. So if you want I can let you know what my sister did. Or you can give a little further detail to your made up 'sad story' hyperbole so I could give you the scenario. But the fact is you have responded to numerous of my posts and still try and put me in a false box.
You are missing the point on my pro-life view. By 20 week (which is when TX was stopping abortion in this law): the child has hair, ears, fingers, elbows, arms, fingers, knees, and legs. The child can hear, can put put his/her hands over their ears when noises are too loud. Feels pain. cries. jumps when startled. even sucks their thumb. I don't see how anyone can say that that isn't a human being by that time. So my view is that it is a human and deserves to be protected.
I'm not saying that next day birth control pills are abortion. But there is a point where they are a person. I think after that point it is no longer about the womans right to choose. They already should have chosen had they wanted an abortion.
You want to look out for this poor 17 year. She made bad choices. But she still deserves a chance. I admire that. I feel the same way.
But you care nothing for her child. Why does her child not get your same safety net?
Are you saying if they could pay for education isn't a realistic premise. Some people can and some people cannot. That's the reality of it. Now we can have a safety net to address that reality or not. This isn't about your money or my money. You choose to live in this society, fully aware that part of the rules is that you're going to be taxed, and once you paid that money, it's not 'your' money anymore.
That safety net can take many shapes and forms, and that's a different debate. Personally, I don't want for-profit motive in that safety net. I don't want somebody else's bottom line dictating what that safety net looks like. (same issue I have with Barrycare). I'm not a fan of government administering much of anything either, but between 'government waste' and 'government waste + private cozy deal' I'll take the former.
I'm sorry, perhaps I should've said a 20 year old. The majority of abortions in this country are between ages 20-24. It's the same premise though.
Hey, I apologize if I got anything wrong. But when the bulk I hear is "government can't do anything right", "welfare queens", "lazy people", etc etc etc that's the impression I get. Perhaps not from you directly, but certainly from that side of the fence.
There's no hyperbole. Young kids are the bulk of abortions. Over 50% of them didn't make any 'bad decision', their contraceptive simply didn't work. Again, we can deal with the cold hard facts of reality here, or we can just pretend this stuff is rare and doesn't deserve our attention. Nearly 1 in 12 Americans don't have a job today. I don't know how was it like when your mom had two jobs or your sister was a kid, but there's a whole lot of unemployed people here today, and we've moved into a country that pushes the uneducated and under-educated people to the bottom. That's what reality looks like today. You tell me where's the hyperbole in any of that.
I'm not missing anything, because I wasn't even addressing it. I'm addressing the hypocrisy of forcing a mother to carry through with a pregnancy while at the same time turning around and ing when said mother is unprepared to face life with that child.
I've said many times that, personally, I'm ok with the 'viability' doctrine in Roe, but at the same time I'm also ok with the fact that we're going to need a safety net for a lot of these kids because some of them will need it.
This is the kind of discourse that's completely disconnected from reality, IMO. What bad choices? Kids have sex at 17 these days, trying to state otherwise is living in a bubble.
For the most part, they're responsible and use contraceptives. Sometimes those don't work. Like they sometimes don't work for people of all ages. Singling these people out and pointing a finger at them like they did something wrong is disgusting, IMO.
white trash
I almost forgot this doesn't even contemplate rape or incest... you can't even put he 'bad decisions' argument up on something that doesn't even care to address the scenarios where the decision isn't on the mother at all...
20 weeks is 4 1/2 ing months. ANYBODY can get an abortion before that.
And I DON'T agree with the rest of that stupid bill but I don't see how anyone can argue a 20 week rule. Viable living babies can be born at 22 weeks and guessing the time of conception is just a guess.
And for the record, before I get accused of being a rabid tea partier I want abortion before 20 weeks to be easy, available, and safe.
yup, those clinics that provide many services outside of abortion need to stay open.
20 weeks. It's 3 1/2 months AFTER they know they are pregnant.
Almost NO ABORTIONS now after 20 weeks, so Repugs are pandering to their "Christian" supremacists, trying to pass a law that looks pro-life / anti-abortion but accomplishes effectively NOTHING.
Why do you want to kill living babies? How many weeks does Bou want?Almost NO ABORTIONS now after 20 weeks, so Repugs are pandering to their "Christian" supremacists, trying to pass a law that looks pro-life / anti-abortion but accomplishes effectively NOTHING.
A law that "accomplishes effectively nothing"?Almost NO ABORTIONS now after 20 weeks, so Repugs are pandering to their "Christian" supremacists, trying to pass a law that looks pro-life / anti-abortion but accomplishes effectively NOTHING.
This law isn't about the 20-week ban, it's about the surgical center standards and requirement of admitting rights that will shut down almost every clinic in the state.
The 20-week ban is cover for the right wingers pushing it to further an agenda which makes safe, legal abortion a thing of the past.
And you've fallen right for the diversion.
X2
The rest of the law truly sucks and I have written a friend in the legislature expressing my reservations on the over reach. That being said I think reasonable people can agree that there should be SOME deadline for abortions. I'm just not cool with killing living viable babies just because they haven't passed all the way through the vagina on natural childbirth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
