Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 108

Thread: Questions you would like one candidate to ask the other candidate in a debate

  1. #61
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigFL View Post
    The irony of all this is the left say they are proponents of choice. Yet they are denying choice for some people.
    i don't follow - what choice are they denying? They're not looking to make abortion mandatory, as far as I know.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    By that measure, all churches should lose their tax exempt status, no? Why should the government subsidize religions that many citizens don't believe in? The lost tax revenue is substantial, to say they least. If someone wants a church experience, they can pay for it, and the church's income, property and fees for services can be taxed, right? You can practice any religion you like of course, but it shouldn't be free of the same taxes that the fast food joints and retail stores are subject to.

    Good thing there isn't a group of citizens that don't believe in medicine at all, or community schooling, or treated water... we'd have to eradicate Medicare and all public medical assistance, schools, most services that we spend on taxpayer dollars to support. Oh, wait...

    What's the number or percentage, by the way, of citizens that you would need to gather that don't believe in or don't care to have their taxes support something before it happens? Majority? Half? A million? A hundred? A dozen? Because I'm not that crazy about what I've heard goes on in some churches and public universities these days, I think we need to get rid of their public assistance.
    I'd agree with that if the tax advantage was specified to any one particular religion. In reality however that same tax exempt status is extended to all religious institutions as well as all manner of charities and not for profit businesses.

    As far as not having tax dollars support something that people find morally offensive we are not talking about sewers and clean water here. The abortion issue splits the country in half. I personally am not for making abortions illegal. People can choose to do what they want as far as im concerned. That said I don't think government should pay for it any more then i would think that government is responsible to provide people with free birth control pills. Spend the $5 and buy the pills. if you want an abortion get $400 together and make it happen. This is common sense stuff.

  3. #63
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I'd agree with that if the tax advantage was specified to any one particular religion. In reality however that same tax exempt status is extended to all religious institutions as well as all manner of charities and not for profit businesses.

    As far as not having tax dollars support something that people find morally offensive we are not talking about sewers and clean water here. The abortion issue splits the country in half. I personally am not for making abortions illegal. People can choose to do what they want as far as im concerned. That said I don't think government should pay for it any more then i would think that government is responsible to provide people with free birth control pills. Spend the $5 and buy the pills. if you want an abortion get $400 together and make it happen. This is common sense stuff.
    You say those two things as if they are diametrically opposed notions - of course you see them the same way. If I think the subsidization of organized religions should stop because of the crimes committed systemically by the Catholic church, or because i disagree with other religions' treatment of women, etc., is my opinion any more or less valid than yours? And does it then mean those things should go away? If you take away the tax exempt status, those religions are not going to be what they are today, and participating isn't going to come at the same relatively low cost, leaving them to the more wealthy only. Is that OK?

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by CraigFL View Post
    The irony of all this is the left say they are proponents of choice. Yet they are denying choice for some people. The goal is to mandate lack of choice for those that don't agree. This whole diatribe is ridiculous. If you so choose to do what you feel, then so be it... But don't expect me to pay for it. Personally, I'm not uber religious, yet those who are, have a right to abide by what they feel. there should NOT be a mandate that forces them against their beliefs.

    interesting discussion, but no one answered my question.
    Should the taxpayer who doesn't believe in funding the choice of someone who can't afford to have a child deciding to get pregnant and having a child? Medicaid covers pregnancy.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-28-2012 at 05:55 AM.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Should the taxpayer who doesn't believe in funding the choice of someone who can't afford to have a child deciding to get pregnant and having a child? Medicaid covers pregnancy.
    Are you really asking if given a choice between paying for a child to live and paying for a child to die which would we choose?

  6. #66
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    Good thing there isn't a group of citizens that don't believe in medicine at all, or community schooling, or treated water... we'd have to eradicate Medicare and all public medical assistance, schools, most services that we spend on taxpayer dollars to support. Oh, wait...
    The straw man of all straw men.

    Not sure how this escapes you, but that is the entire point of a free society. If a majority of the people don't believe in medicine, it isn't your call to force it upon them. You're free to educate them on why they're better off with it to shift public opinion. Then they can adopt it themselves. But the use of force is contrary to everything this nation stands for. It's also the lazy way to do it.

  7. #67
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,675
    I'd ask Obuttocks: There's a new ad out that show Hilary Clinton complaining about your lying in 2008. When are you going to stop lying about everything? And will your answer be a lie?






    (prolly yes. )

  8. #68
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,668
    Originally Posted by isired<br />

    <br />
    Good thing there isn't a group of citizens that don't believe in medicine at all, or community schooling, or treated water... we'd have to eradicate Medicare and all public medical assistance, schools, most services that we spend on taxpayer dollars to support. Oh, wait...
    <br />
    <br />
    The straw man of all straw men.<br />
    <br />
    Not sure how this escapes you, but that is the entire point of a free society. If a majority of the people don't believe in medicine, it isn't your call to force it upon them. You're free to educate them on why they're better off with it to shift public opinion. Then they can adopt it themselves. But the use of force is contrary to everything this nation stands for. It's also the lazy way to do it.
    ???
    Who's talking about forcing care or services on anyone? They're forced to pay for those services, via taxes, though they don't believe in them. That's the way it works, we can't earmark our tax dollars.

  9. #69
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    ???
    Who's talking about forcing care or services on anyone? They're forced to pay for those services, via taxes, though they don't believe in them. That's the way it works, we can't earmark our tax dollars.
    Taxes by definition are force. Every time you add a "service" , particularly those determined by the minority to be for the "greater good", you exert your will upon me and reduce my freedoms and my choice.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by isired View Post
    You say those two things as if they are diametrically opposed notions - of course you see them the same way. If I think the subsidization of organized religions should stop because of the crimes committed systemically by the Catholic church, or because i disagree with other religions' treatment of women, etc., is my opinion any more or less valid than yours? And does it then mean those things should go away? If you take away the tax exempt status, those religions are not going to be what they are today, and participating isn't going to come at the same relatively low cost, leaving them to the more wealthy only. Is that OK?
    You completely missed the core point. The issue is how leftists portray any situation in which government doesnt give people something for free as a war on that constituency. Worse when discussing those issues they lie and demonize and use language meant to confuse people. If Republicans don't think free birth control pills for all is an appropriate law then they are fighting a war on women and preventing their access to critical care. Let me clarify this for you. Just because government doesn't give you something for free doesn't mean that you have been denied access to something. You don't have a right to free **** from the government.

    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

    Who in their right mind thinks that government should be giving free stuff to rich women who currently have no problem forking up the $5 a month to buy pills? Why would anyone think that in a time of fiscal crisis the government should be giving away free stuff to the rich? Much like most everything leftists do these concepts are designed to purchase elections. Nothing more nothing less.
    Last edited by chiefst2000; 08-28-2012 at 09:56 AM.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    The issue is how leftists portray any situation in which government doesnt give people something for free as a war on that constituency.
    This.

    Although it goes further, anyone who does not agree with even their basic policy position on an issue or right is described as waging a war on the recipients/beneficiariaes/proponents of that policy.

    Hence being against abortion is a "War on Women".

    Being for Voter ID is a "War on Minorities".

    Being for Governmental accountabillity and reasonable limits of a program like food stamps is a "War on Poor Hungry Children".

    Etc, etc, etc.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Just because government doesn't give you something for free doesn't mean that you have been denied access to something. You don't have a right to free **** from the government.
    If not for moonbats, your statement would not be so profound.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Are you really asking if given a choice between paying for a child to live and paying for a child to die which would we choose?
    Who the hell are you to say that women who can’t afford to take care of her child I have to support but you don’t want to support her abortion because of your personal beliefs? The reason I do and you do is we have a nation that demands it.

    Why should I pay for drone planes that are used in assassinations, renditions for torture, war crimes committed on my dime? There are a ton of things that our government funds from abortion to torture to outright murder that I don't support but I can't opt out from and as screwed up as that is, it's a good thing it is that way.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 08-28-2012 at 12:14 PM.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    You completely missed the core point. The issue is how leftists portray any situation in which government doesnt give people something for free as a war on that constituency. Worse when discussing those issues they lie and demonize and use language meant to confuse people. If Republicans don't think free birth control pills for all is an appropriate law then they are fighting a war on women and preventing their access to critical care. Let me clarify this for you. Just because government doesn't give you something for free doesn't mean that you have been denied access to something. You don't have a right to free **** from the government.

    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

    Who in their right mind thinks that government should be giving free stuff to rich women who currently have no problem forking up the $5 a month to buy pills? Why would anyone think that in a time of fiscal crisis the government should be giving away free stuff to the rich? Much like most everything leftists do these concepts are designed to purchase elections. Nothing more nothing less.
    And I'm fighting the war on drugs, the war on terror, no child left behind, the war on poverty, fill in the blank and left or right as you see fit. That's politics.

    Rich women aren't getting free stuff, they have to buy insurance. Why should women subsidize the medical condition of your balls through their premiums?

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Who the hell are you to say that women who canít afford to take care of her child I have to support but you donít want to support her abortion because of your personal beliefs? The reason I do and you do is we have a nation that demands it.
    I would say the answer is both.

    If you don't believe in supporting abortion, your taxes should be used to give free abortions.

    If you don't believe in supporting those who are able-bodied and don't support themselves, you again shouldn't have to.

    At what point did "Governing" become "Giving Free **** to People We decide Deserve It Cause We're Cool Like That"?

    Is it not a part of the problem that we've gone from having a Government, to having this all encompassing State that has a hand in every pocket, a role in every aspect, and a decision to make for us on every issue?

    I eman really, did we create our Government so it could tax us, and spend that money of Shrip Masturbation scicne projects, and food stamps for folks who make $40,000/year?

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    And I'm fighting the war on drugs, the war on terror, no child left behind, the war on poverty, fill in the blank and left or right as you see fit. That's politics.

    Rich women aren't getting free stuff, they have to buy insurance. Why should women subsidize the medical condition of your balls through their premiums?
    Huh? Rich women get free pills under Obamacare. I don't understand this response. If the free **** was really about access to care it would have been limited to a certain income level. Why is it there?

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Huh? Rich women get free pills under Obamacare. I don't understand this response. If the free **** was really about access to care it would have been limited to a certain income level. Why is it there?
    Isn't there a whole host of care that is mandatory to cover for rich men? Isn't this just part of the mandatory aspect of health insurance? Why the ragging on birth control as a stand alone?

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    I would say the answer is both.

    If you don't believe in supporting abortion, your taxes should be used to give free abortions.

    If you don't believe in supporting those who are able-bodied and don't support themselves, you again shouldn't have to.

    At what point did "Governing" become "Giving Free **** to People We decide Deserve It Cause We're Cool Like That"?

    Is it not a part of the problem that we've gone from having a Government, to having this all encompassing State that has a hand in every pocket, a role in every aspect, and a decision to make for us on every issue?

    I eman really, did we create our Government so it could tax us, and spend that money of Shrip Masturbation scicne projects, and food stamps for folks who make $40,000/year?
    That is a cleaner position. I don't agree with it entirely because I do believe in a social safety net but your position vs. an opt out for stuff you don't want or believe in makes more sense.

    However if our elected officials decide to mandate and the court upholds it, you can't opt out just because.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    That is a cleaner position. I don't agree with it entirely because I do believe in a social safety net but your position vs. an opt out for stuff you don't want or believe in makes more sense.
    As do I, as a matter of fact. What I don't believe in is the inevitable creep of teh Social safety Net into a Social Welfare State, encompassing not just the poor, disabled or needy, but as many citizens and non-citizens as possible.

    if we were voting for a real "social safety net", that served only the truly in need, with real limitations, expectation and responsabillities on the individuals who recieve it, run efficiently by the State, and guaranteed not to expand, you'd have my vote every time.

    "social safety net" as wedge in the door to expand Government and bring social welfare to all......no.

    However if our elected officials decide to mandate and the court upholds it, you can't opt out just because.
    Agreed. The Law is the Law.

  20. #80
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Should the taxpayer who doesn't believe in funding the choice of someone who can't afford to have a child deciding to get pregnant and having a child? Medicaid covers pregnancy.
    +1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us