Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. Murder is not a right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-03 6:31
"We are SO getting to the core of the issue."
This means what exactly? Are you gonna play the bias card now because I was adopted?
"Hilarity. Men and Women are equally guilty and it's not the man who has to GIVE FUCKING BIRTH. I've said this before- sort out destructive gender differences, then we can talk."
Thank you for that non-sequitur. Now what does your outburst have to do with the fact that women have the most reason to be careful and check themselves because they "give fucking birth"?
"It's them man's responsibility and obligation to be a decent intruder."
Yes. The guy shoudl ask the girl if she has any great risk of getting pregnant before they have intercourse. In which case, the girl needs to be the one to know since it's in here body that all the chemical reactions prelude.
"Um, isn't the point with any punishment to harm those that are doing the same thing. It was MEANT to be a deterrent (like abortion laws will be to becoming pregnant, in your world) but it just didn't work."
The war on drugs has more to do with sanctions than with punishment. Law enforcement was given more freedom to bust dealelrs and cartels. More time served for narcotics is just icing.
"Once a again, come and say that when America has a better record for killing people that a bunch of college kids proved innocent. Idiot. DP is actually counter-efffective"
SOoooooooo.....You're saying that every single individual that fries in the chair or gets put under the needle is going to be innocent?
I don't like innocents being executed anymore than you do, but chinks in the system are bound to happen, and because said system strives for perfection, even though it never will be, we have no choice but to tolerate the injustice that slips through it. That's why we reinforce the law as opposed to destroying one of its cornerstones (as you are suggesting).
"Stop making strawmen out of everything."
There's no strawman here. The logical conlusions of your assertion is to tolerate the imbalanced and almost certifiably incurable nature of psychopaths. There are select few rare occasions where sociopaths were actually able to grund themselves with ethics (although they have to struggle every day), but generally they're all dangerous.
Furthermore, last I checked it was your side of the argument that was making points for disposing of non-utilitarian sentients (see also: 'Abortion is better for society because the kids will only end up criminals anyway' argument"). What I find funny is that you're willing to dispose of them when they're not contradicting your self-righteous diatribe about rights to live and choose. However, now that they're not controversial lumps of flesh who's existence could diffuse your way of thinking, they're useful to you as mascots against the DP.
"Treatment works better and is cheaper,"
Oh my god, you are fucking cracked.
"All of these policies have either killed innocents, given the right to murder to the state, destroyed perpetrators of victimless crimes and costs America a lot more than a "bleeding-heart" stance would do. What type of libertarian are you?"
Window-dressing. What you haven't proven with the WAD, DP, and the Insanity Plea, you haven't even addressed for the 3 Strikes policy. I'm also pretty sure you mean drugs when you say "victimless crime." You've obviously never hung out in Hollywood or South Central LA.
As for what kind of Libertarian I am: I'm a practical one.
"As if your neighbourhood is the only front of the crusade on drugs. I wonder what is going to protect your siblings from all the crimes caused by alcohol consumption."
That's the way Xel! Change the subject! While you're at it, why don't you take about potheads who drive while they're high.
My living space may not have been the only front of the WAD, but the point is that it did save lives. Saying that couldn't save more is ignorant.
"The tax cuts have failed, privatization of Soc Sec will fail and the amount of people under the poverty level have risen since Bush took over. This is sad."
On the contrary, the tax cuts have been bringing in a cumulatively largeer amount of money each year. It's more than eaten away at the deficit caused by Clinton's reign (the man who turned me away from the left forever after 8 years of idleness and stupidity) and 9/11. The only reason Clinton was able to achieve a surplus towards the end of his terms was because the GOP pressured him to enact taxcuts in 97. Then, after he spent as much as he could on social programs, the debt immediately went up hill just as Bush took office. To add insult to injury, 9/11 happened:
Historically, the United States government has tended to spend more than it takes in, with national debt that was close to $1,000,000,000 at the beginning of the 20th century. The budget for most of the 20th century followed a pattern of deficits during wartime and economic crises, and surpluses during periods of peacetime economic expansion. This pattern broke from fiscal years 1970 to 1997; although the country was nominally at peace during most of this time, the federal budget deficit accelerated, topping out (in absolute terms) at $290 billion for 1992. In 1998 - 2001, however, gross revenues exceeded expenditures. Subsequently the budget has returned to a deficit basis; the estimated U.S. deficit for fiscal year 2004 was $412.6 billion.
Bush, quite frankly, didn't have a chance to spend anything. He was doing a lot of interesting, but small things, in attempt to help the economy.
Cutting taxes often leads to [url=http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=48]more[/url], not less, revenue for the government.
Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s. Aside from Reagan's first year of Reaganomics, which caused the economy to move very slowly, the last three years of his first term had the economy moving faster than it had in 30 years.
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 25%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period).
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
Furthermore, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes.
Finally: Poverty rates are the same as they ever were. Job rates, on the other hand, have been sky-rocketing lately.
Taxcuts work. Deal with it.
"Oh holy shit. Are you real or am I having a nightmare?"
That's not a response. Your snarkiness wins you no points. It doesn't even win you an internet.
"No, which is the entire point here."
So you understand that all of the general understanding about whether or not the female risks pregnancy is empirically on her observations and not the male who can't ovulate?
"The issue is that we just don't respect you. I know for a fact that adopted children fare just as well as any other kid. You are the exception that affirms the rule."
More snarkiness, but no substance.
"Abortion helps society."
I gotta give this a shot........Fale!
DAMMIT!
"You inferred what you wanted to hear you undeveloped shitcrust."
No. Anonymous clearly differentiates the right to kill based on the origin of what or who you're killing.