Because you must be responsible for yourself

[mzbk2l]

imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

mzbk2l wrote:

<snip>
Personally, I don't want a politician using his religious beliefs to decide what to do with my tax dollars. I don't care if this guy wants to pass a law requiring everyone to own a gun; he won't get my vote as long as he's pushing his religious views on my life.

If it's not his religious views, it's his political views, or his "worldview," or his secular views, or his views about social justice, or his idea of fairness, or whatever.....

Whenever someone takes a stand on some issue, his position is determined by the things he believes. Some people use Christianity to inform their views. Some people prefer a secular humanist view. Or something else.

Whatever the case, he's using his views, his philosophy to decide what to do with your tax dollars. I don't see why "religious beliefs" are the worst reason to decide what to do with your money.

Religious beliefs may not be the worst reason to decide what to do with my money, but I'd prefer logic and a bit of fiscal responsibility.

Denying a service that has the potential to save a great deal of our tax money simply because it conflicts with his religious beliefs is not logical.

Even more importantly, denying other people the right to make a personal choice because of his religious beliefs would be enough to keep me from voting for him.

Why does he want the government to butt out on gun rights, but wants the government to intrude in other areas?

 

[LeagueOf1291]

imported post

Children 'bad for planet' By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

Full coverage: Climate change in-depth
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.
"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.
The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

mzbk2l wrote:

Why does he want the government to butt out on gun rights, but wants the government to intrude in other areas?

I don't get the logic. You want the government to intrude in family planning, don't you?

 

[mzbk2l]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

mzbk2l wrote:

Why does he want the government to butt out on gun rights, but wants the government to intrude in other areas?

I don't get the logic. You want the government to intrude in family planning, don't you?

No, I don't want the government to intrude anywhere. But if I'm given a choice between either paying for someone to get a contraceptive or paying for someone and her kids to be on welfare, I'll choose the former.

This guy wants me to pay for the welfare instead, because HIS moral beliefs preclude paying for the "family planning."

Given my choice, the government would not spend my money on the planning OR on the welfare. Since I have to pay for one of them, though, I'll take the planning.

 

[usmc_recon]

imported post

I will have to disagree Tess. Your mother may have lived a hard life, be a great person and worked hard. But regardless, that doesn't make it society's problem that your Dad left her. However, I'm glad you brought up that as an example because it needs to be addressed.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it may seem that way. Perhaps before women have children, they make sure that they REALLY know the man they're having children with. If they don't, then maybe they shouldn't have children, or have no more than 1. Maybe they should make sure that family, friends and private charitable institutions will be able to help them IN CASE the man leaves. We are human beings and we DO have the ability to control our will power above and beyond our animal instincts. We can not simply pro-create with each other and hope that things will work out. Because clearly by the amount of single mothers on welfare, they are NOT working out. I don't mean to excuse thefathers who leaveeither. They are just as guilty.

I am NOT saying that these single mothers aren't deserving of compassion and help. I'm just saying that law makers and governments shouldNOT be the ones to give it. It is not right for government to choose which handouts to give and tax all of the population to do it. Maybe I want to support war vets, maybe you want to support single mothers, maybe someone else wants to save the whales, and maybe someone else doesn't want to support anyone. That's why welfare should be abolished.

Welfare is socialism. And while NO government is complete freedom, socialism is definitely FAR removed from it.

 

[Tess]

imported post

usmc_recon wrote:

I will have to disagree Tess. Your mother may have lived a hard life, be a great person and worked hard. But regardless, that doesn't make it society's problem that your Dad left her. However, I'm glad you brought up that as an example because it needs to be addressed.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but it may seem that way. Perhaps before women have children, they make sure that they REALLY know the man they're having children with. If they don't, then maybe they shouldn't have children, or have no more than 1. Maybe they should make sure that family, friends and private charitable institutions will be able to help them IN CASE the man leaves. We are human beings and we DO have the ability to control our will power above and beyond our animal instincts. We can not simply pro-create with each other and hope that things will work out. Because clearly by the amount of single mothers on welfare, they are NOT working out. I don't mean to excuse thefathers who leaveeither. They are just as guilty.

I am NOT saying that these single mothers aren't deserving of compassion and help. I'm just saying that law makers and governments shouldNOT be the ones to give it. It is not right for government to choose which handouts to give and tax all of the population to do it. Maybe I want to support war vets, maybe you want to support single mothers, maybe someone else wants to save the whales, and maybe someone else doesn't want to support anyone. That's why welfare should be abolished.

Welfare is socialism. And while NO government is complete freedom, socialism is definitely FAR removed from it.

Sorry, we'll have to disagree. Some people need HELP. Not a handout, not for their whole lives, but for short periods of time until they can stand on their own. Those who would abolish the entire system, IMHO, don't see the need for societal compassion.

I'm willing to dispose of the current system, but there has to be a mechanism for those such as my mom, or those who are caught by catastrophic illness (should they not be born because they might have a congenital predisposition to a catastrophic illness they can't afford? Same issue.) And I'm willing to say "No **** Way" to those who abuse the system.

 

[casullshooter]

imported post

I have to agree with Tess on this one , I am willing to help someone that is honestly working to help themselves and not looking for a long free lunch .

 

[cato]

imported post

I want Open Carry Liberty..."I want it all, I want it now": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt7OVTBYMwg&NR=1

 

[usmc_recon]

imported post

That's the beauty, you CAN help the same people Tess wants to help- privately! What you two are actually saying is that YOU want to support certain groups of people AND you want to pass laws which force OTHERS to help those same groups of people. There is quite a big difference indeed.

Guess what? Some environmentalists want you to save the spotted owl. Some African Americans want reparations for slavery. I just read today that the county I live in wants to help unwed parents learn better parenting skills. Everybody has their own special cause.

I hope each and every one of you help all those special interest groups that you want, and I will support those ones I want as well. But please don't pass any laws that force me to give to someone else's favorite idea. That is bad government.

Someone recently told me that democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner? Our country needs to be better than that. Maybe the sheep doesn't want to get eaten for dinner and we have to respect his rights.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

cato wrote:

I want Open Carry Liberty..."I want it all, I want it now": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt7OVTBYMwg&NR=1

Awesome!

I'm glad he managed to make an impression in the debate the other day. More than most individualists ever get.

My take on welfare: If you or your family needs help, feel free to ask nice. I will help out friends if I can spare the bucks, and there are lots of other folks who would be glad to help.

But I have to draw the line when someone wants my "help" by sending the taxman over to collect it from me at gunpoint.

My mom and dad taught me that that's called socialism.

And family planning is also socialism, with a little nanny state and a pinch of police state thrown in.

You can choose between welfare and family planning if you like; for my part I reject them both as two flavors of the same sh|+ sandwich.

 

[LeagueOf1291]

imported post

usmc and Tomahawk, you're exactly right. Some people need help, and when they do, they ought to ask, and when they ask, family, friends, church, and neighbors ought to pitch in to help.

"It is more blessed to give than to receive," but taking by force and giving to the entitled ruins the whole thing.

Our welfare/nanny/police state has created going on three generations of wimps, whiners, sluggards, and mooches, and it's getting worse. People who can't work, can't take pain, can't take an insult, can't take care of themselves. People who want pleasure without a price, victory without a struggle, and peace without vigilance.

These people remember nothing, learn nothing, value nothing. They know neither valor nor faith.

Shall we keep letting them blackmail us? "You better pay for my condoms, or else I'll make you pay for my child."

Isn't it time we tried something else?

 

[Tess]

imported post

LeagueOf1291 wrote:

usmc and Tomahawk, you're exactly right. Some people need help, and when they do, they ought to ask, and when they ask, family, friends, church, and neighbors ought to pitch in to help.

"It is more blessed to give than to receive," but taking by force and giving to the entitled ruins the whole thing.

(snip)

Isn't it time we tried something else?

Agreed, too, in part. But not all have relatives, family, or churches. Sometimes family, neighbors, churches, etc. don't help.

Until we give welfare administrators the right to say "no" as well, we have the situation as we currently have. Broken, and deserving of abandonment. We're not disagreeing as much as some seem to think we are. I think the system needs to provide for someone who cannot provide for himself at least as much as it provides for prisoners who have chosen to stomp on others' rights. At least a bed, food, and a chance to do better.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

 

[cato]

imported post

bump, Go Ron!

 

[PavePusher]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Tess wrote:

I'm still wishing for a candidate I could support enthusiastically. Haven't seen one in many many many years - wait, I don't think I've ever seen one. The only reason I don't (usually) waste my vote on someone with not a snowball's chance is that I've for years voted AGAINST someone (can you say John Kerry, or Billary Clinton?) instead of for a candidate I truly wish to see in office.

The problem is in being a fiscal conservative, a social liberal, a defense republican and a local libertarian, I guess.

How can we have so much trouble finding good people with 535 federal legislators, 50 state governors, and numerous state and federal judges? I'm thinking it ought to be just the reverse if they're really qualified to be leaders. Shouldn't we ought to have about 500 good people from which to select, with the bad ones really standing out as obvious?

Unfortunatly, elections haven't been about competence in a very long time. Instead, they've been about popularity. Since at least the early 19th century...

Want to see what popularity gets you? Just watch Big Brother, Survivor, American Idol, etc. Then you might truly understand the results of the past 20 or 30 elections.

Robert Heinlein said it bestparaphrased) "There may not be anything(one) you want to votefor, but there will almost certainly be something worth voting against. This lets you fulfill your civic duty; if you you don't vote, you have no right to bitch about the results."

A philosophy Ihold dear to my heart. This is the USA. Apathy is the one inexcusable belief.

 

[casullshooter]

imported post

ROGER THAT..........

 

[Andrewsky]

imported post

Guess what?

I'll follow Ron Paul through the gates of hell with a blindfold on if he lets me carry my sidearm with me.

-A one issue guy

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

PavePusher wrote:

Robert Heinlein said it best: (paraphrased) "There may not be anything(one) you want to votefor, but there will almost certainly be something worth voting against. This lets you fulfill your civic duty; if you you don't vote, you have no right to bitch about the results."

A philosophy Ihold dear to my heart. This is the USA. Apathy is the one inexcusable belief.

Not all non-voters are apathetic. Some people purposely do not vote because they feel it is pointless or even rigged.

In addition, your right to "bitch", i.e. speak freely, is not dependent on whether or not you vote.

So, although I have always like Heinlein, on this issue he can stick it where the sun don't shine.

And I also am a one-issue guy: my issue is individual liberty.

 

[rmodel65]

imported post

to you guys who disagree with Paul wanting to pass the definition of where life begins, you gotta look at it this way. if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 murders. the child is legally alive and a person, but if you do an abortion it is not a life. most everyone here would say they want to protect liberty? how do you say you protect a 1yr old but not one the womb? a lot of libertarians are pro choice because they say you have a right to hurt yourself, but what about the child in the womb what about the child's right not to be killed because the mother wants it?

i know you cant legislate morality, but to say you have the right to end someones life is preposterous. it really boils down to the idea that i am forced to pay for this with my tax dollars.

im all for pro-choice you have the right to choose lay in the bed with a woman, every guy on earth knows what can happen. you have the choice to wear a condom or use other birth control or choose abstincence.



paul is the only person currently in the race that i will ever give my vote to. even if it ends up as a protest vote. the problem the republican party is gonna have is that 25% of caucus voters still will not vote for mcinsane

if the state conventions keep going like they are mccain will not have as many delegates pledged to him,Paul is the grassroots canidate and Paul delegates like myself are changing party rules and nominating like minded delegates to the national convention. much like lincoln was not frontrunner at his convention it will hopefully be a brokered convetion this year.

 

[Tess]

imported post

rmodel65 wrote:

to you guys who disagree with Paul wanting to pass the definition of where life begins, you gotta look at it this way. if you kill a pregnant woman you are charged with 2 murders. the child is legally alive and a person, but if you do an abortion it is not a life. most everyone here would say they want to protect liberty? how do you say you protect a 1yr old but not one the womb? a lot of libertarians are pro choice because they say you have a right to hurt yourself, but what about the child in the womb what about the child's right not to be killed because the mother wants it?

i know you cant legislate morality, but to say you have the right to end someones life is preposterous. it really boils down to the idea that i am forced to pay for this with my tax dollars.

im all for pro-choice you have the right to choose lay in the bed with a woman, every guy on earth knows what can happen. you have the choice to wear a condom or use other birth control or choose abstincence.



paul is the only person currently in the race that i will ever give my vote to. even if it ends up as a protest vote. the problem the republican party is gonna have is that 25% of caucus voters still will not vote for mcinsane

if the state conventions keep going like they are mccain will not have as many delegates pledged to him,Paul is the grassroots canidate and Paul delegates like myself are changing party rules and nominating like minded delegates to the national convention. much like lincoln was not frontrunner at his convention it will hopefully be a brokered convetion this year.

I'm not going to argue abortion rights with you on this board, but I will not allow somone else to decide what goes with my body.

If a woman has to face some final judgment, it's her choice, not yours.