Why the Libertarians can't get shit done

[TurdFergeson]

States are free to determine their own laws restricting abortion.

South Dakota?

Roe V Wade protects privacy and to some extent choice.

Until you're the one who has to put a hanger up your cunt to try to induce labor (though it really just kills you most of the time), or the one throwing yourself down stairs to avoid having the baby of your rapist, or the mother of 6 kids who can't deal with a 7th yet your abusive husband won't let you use birth control, or have the daughter in college who is a product of our times - by that I mean zero realistic sex ed, and no communication in the home...I gather you have no idea what you're talking about.

Wow, emotional red herrings.

South Dakota is currently attempting to overturn Roe V Wade with their own law banning all abortions. So what? Why would it be so difficult for a woman in South Dakota to get on a bus and go to North Dakota for her "procedure"?

I didnt realize that CONVENIENCE of abortions was also a right.

I thought we lived in a nation where the majority rules?

Not a socialistic state where the Fed. Government decides what is good for everyone. (Not including the rights supplied in the constitution).

 

[bare_pussy]

What you are missing is that overturning roe v. wade will not make abortions illegal, or get rid of them, at all.

So, yes, women will be just fine.

Or, if you think abortions are a right, get a constitutional amendment passed making it so.

Because nowhere in that document does it even mention abortions.

I'm not missing that. I know perfectly well it won't ban abortion.

Abortion will never be illegal in 21st century America.

the issue is that the people who tend to seek out abortions, or conversely have many unwanted children they can't care for, are unable to get the proper health care, the proper sex ed, and the proper jobs to PREVENT them from becoming parents that can't handle kids. Which then turns into a temporary burden for the gov't.

It's a chicken or egg argument. One way or another, the government needs to provide for those who have been shit on since the founding of this country. Or those who are shit on because we've stopped caring about anyone but the rich.
Is it better to help them early on, or take care of their unwanted kids?

 

[Ishmael]

States are free to determine their own laws restricting abortion.

South Dakota?

Roe V Wade protects privacy and to some extent choice.

Until you're the one who has to put a hanger up your cunt to try to induce labor (though it really just kills you most of the time), or the one throwing yourself down stairs to avoid having the baby of your rapist, or the mother of 6 kids who can't deal with a 7th yet your abusive husband won't let you use birth control, or have the daughter in college who is a product of our times - by that I mean zero realistic sex ed, and no communication in the home...I gather you have no idea what you're talking about.

We are NOT talking about abortion. If you bothered to read the Libertarian platform you'd find that they have NO intention of abrogating reproduction choices.

This whole thread started with an assertion by Uberdork that Libertarians were anti-abortion. That assertion is patently false. There may be some Libertarians that take issue with that official plank in their platform, just as some democrats are anti-abortion. But the views of those that differ from that plank, do not change the official position of the party.

Ishmael

 

[HenryFastpants]

States are free to determine their own laws restricting abortion.

South Dakota?

Roe V Wade protects privacy and to some extent choice.

Until you're the one who has to put a hanger up your cunt to try to induce labor (though it really just kills you most of the time), or the one throwing yourself down stairs to avoid having the baby of your rapist, or the mother of 6 kids who can't deal with a 7th yet your abusive husband won't let you use birth control, or have the daughter in college who is a product of our times - by that I mean zero realistic sex ed, and no communication in the home...I gather you have no idea what you're talking about.

You really should consider changing your screen name to, "Lil'MissSunshine"

 

[bare_pussy]

Wow, emotional red herrings.

South Dakota is currently attempting to overturn Roe V Wade with their own law banning all abortions. So what? Why would it be so difficult for a woman in South Dakota to get on a bus and go to North Dakota for her "procedure"?

I didnt realize that CONVENIENCE of abortions was also a right.

I thought we lived in a nation where the majority rules?

Not a socialistic state where the Fed. Government decides what is good for everyone. (Not including the rights supplied in the constitution).

because people who are poor can't get on a bus? people who have no familial support to take them to and from the family planning clinic are unable to go alone?

I never said convenience is a right - but again, you're perpetuating the cycle by ensuring people who can least afford unwanted kids are unable to prevent said pregnancies and/or birth.

 

[TurdFergeson]

I'm not missing that. I know perfectly well it won't ban abortion.

Abortion will never be illegal in 21st century America.

the issue is that the people who tend to seek out abortions, or conversely have many unwanted children they can't care for, are unable to get the proper health care, the proper sex ed, and the proper jobs to PREVENT them from becoming parents that can't handle kids. Which then turns into a temporary burden for the gov't.

It's a chicken or egg argument. One way or another, the government needs to provide for those who have been shit on since the founding of this country. Or those who are shit on because we've stopped caring about anyone but the rich.
Is it better to help them early on, or take care of their unwanted kids?

I don't see your point. Overturning Roe V Wade won't affect any of the things you mention.

And making abortions more convenient seems to have the effect of making people care LESS about their decisions, since:

"Oh well, I got drunk and knocked up by a stranger, for the 7th time, but it's OK, I'll just go to the drive through abortion clinic on every corner. Maybe get a latte afterwards to help with my hangover."

 

[TurdFergeson]

because people who are poor can't get on a bus? people who have no familial support to take them to and from the family planning clinic are unable to go alone?

I never said convenience is a right - but again, you're perpetuating the cycle by ensuring people who can least afford unwanted kids are unable to prevent said pregnancies and/or birth.

Maybe you should start a personal charity, "Donations for abortions for poor people".

Amazing that poor people can get medicaid and get heart transplants in this nation from eating too much junk food, but they can't afford a bus ticket.

I know, start an "abortion bus service", in the states that outlaw it. Could be quite profitable, if not macabre as hell.

 

[bare_pussy]

Where the hell do you live that there's an abortion clinic on every corner?

I live in a relatively wealthy city and i can't even find a regular doctor that isn't one mistake shy of deportation.

ETA: I also think you oversimplify everything. But, I'm sure it's easier for your brain to process your complete lack of ability to step outside your insulated box of male comfort.

Now where did I put my birth control?

 

[ubertroll]

Let's start with some facts. It is the responsibility of the plant operator to install scrubbers on their own nickle. The government isn't paying for that. What gives the federal government the mandate to pass such a law? The fact that that soot and other pollutants travel across state lines gives them the mandate.

So if I made a 'leaky' nuclear plant that gave my workers, and the people in a nearby town, cancer at rates ten thousand times the national average, I'd be fine? But if it gave pigs at a nearby farm cancer, THAT would be a no-no, because the pigs get butchered and sold in South Dakota?

A woman who finds herself pregnant has three options, get an abortion, have the baby and keep it, have the baby and put it up for abortion.

I think you mean adoption, but I am amused by your freudian slip. And Tard Fergus over there doesn't think abortion should be an option.

The governments of the various states are closer to the citizen than the federal government. California, as per your example, has issues unique to California and is a better position to address those issues than the federal government, which gravitates towards a 'one size fits all' type solution.

Is California substantially closer to the interests of rural Californians, given that the state government is dominated by the large, populous urban areas? I don't disagree with your contention that a government closer to the people is more capable of wielding authority in a manner consonant with the will of the people, but I don't think your metric of 'leave it to the states' neccessarily accomplishes your goal.

You need to properly define how large a populace a single government can rightful administer is. Only then can you construct Federal system that properly administers this.

Do you know why federal welfare came about to begin with?

Because it worked rather well in Germany, where in turn it was part of the German social contract: Let the Kaiser and his Chancellor run the country how they please, and we'll make sure you're taken care of economically and militarily, cradle to the grave.

But I'm interested into what your answer is. You're always so entertaining.






As a final point, I would like to point out that those places most concerned with 'states rights'--the Republican states--are fiscally subsidized by the more economically prosperous states--the Democratic ones.* The states that are in favor of a more powerful Federal government are the ones that contribute to the ones who disparage the Federal government... if the Republican states won this argument and that welfare to the Republicans dried up, it would be the Midwest and South that collapsed, not the Northeast, upper Midwest, or Pacific coast.



*If you remember a few years ago there was a chart with 'average IQs of states' with each state labeled red or blue. The top of the chart was blue state after blue state after blue state, the bottom was red red red. This chart was imbicilic and innaccurate, its listed IQ scores were in no way shape or form based in fact... it was, however, an ACCURATE display of average per capita income in those states. Someone just divided the average incomes by a constant to get numbers in the 80-140 range, resembling IQs.

 

[ubertroll]

We are NOT talking about abortion. If you bothered to read the Libertarian platform you'd find that they have NO intention of abrogating reproduction choices.

Yet the former Libertarian party presidential candidate, and current Republican congressman, Ron Paul, is anti-choice.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Where the hell do you live that there's an abortion clinic on every corner?

I live in a relatively wealthy city and i can't even find a regular doctor that isn't one mistake shy of deportation.

ETA: I also think you oversimplify everything. But, I'm sure it's easier for your brain to process your complete lack of ability to step outside your insulated box of male comfort.

Now where did I put my birth control?

I think you oversimplify.

You act like abortions are a constitutional right. Wrong.

You act like overturning Roe V Wade will make abortions illegal everywhere. Untrue.

You act like the libertarian platform of giving states the right to choose for themselves will result in untold horror stories. Pure speculation on your part.

Also funny how you people NEVER, ever , ever mention adoptions. Even though there are thousands of couples out there who would love to adopt the kids rather than have them aborted.

That just isn't an option in your mind. "KILL EM ALL, they're poor and will become CRIMINALS later in life! WE KNOW THIS!"

Jeesh, not very humanitarian of you.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Yet the former Libertarian party presidential candidate, and current Republican congressman, Ron Paul, is anti-choice.

Answer the question, if everyone is sovereign over their own body, as you say, why is suicide illegal? Or even assisted suicide for terminally ill people?

Can't answer that, can ya?

Ron Paul is personally against all abortions, but he has said numerous times he would NEVER outlaw the procedure, he just wants each state to make that decision for themselves. But that is too complex for your simplistic thought processes to understand.

 

[Ishmael]

"Welfare" as we know it began as aid to women and children who lost their bread winner (husband/father) in war.

Protecting women and mothers.

The United States does not have welfare. We currently have TANF, a program that does absolutely nothing to help women out of poverty, provide for their children, or become self sufficient.

TANF is why I have a hard time being proud of the Clinton presidency.

Fill in the rest of the story. There was NO federal welfare to speak of until the mid 60's. All welfare was state generated and state administered.

The stink all began between IL and WI. WI had a particularly liberal welfare payment plan as compared to IL. Soooooo, a lot of welfare mothers started moving from Chicago to Millwaukee. So much so that WI. started bitching. The other states with liberal welfare programs looked around and sure enough, they found themselves a magnet for welfare mothers. Needless to say most of those states with the liberal programs were the larger, more prosperous states. Sooo, senators like Dirksen and Moynihan contrived to share the wealth so to speak. Because the parties of their respective state legislatures decided to engage in a bidding war, welfare for votes, putting the state budgets in jeopardy, they figured out a way to get those dollars from other states.

And so started the "Bastard Boom", or as Moynihan later labled it, "Defining degenercy downwards" began. (Give Moynihan credit for coming out publically and stating that the program he championed was an abysmal failure.) The fact that this all occured with the availability of the 'the pill' made all the more obvious that having 'babies for bullion' was an industry. And it virtually destroyed the black family.

The fact remains that if you reward bad behavior, you're going to get more of it.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Yet the former Libertarian party presidential candidate, and current Republican congressman, Ron Paul, is anti-choice.

Ron Paul can be anything he wants as an individual. Just as Casey of PA can. Neither speak for the platform of their respective parties.

Do they Uberdork?

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

BTW, I'm pro choice, and would vote to keep abortions in my state.

(With restrictions like 1st trimester only, or if there is an emergency or danger to the mother's life).

But I don't think it's fair to impose my will or my state's will on every other state.

 

[December]

Why Literoticans can't get shit done

Because their parody is run by crackpots.

The above should be a parody thread, but I was much too lazy.

 

[ubertroll]

Answer the question, if everyone is sovereign over their own body, as you say, why is suicide illegal? Or even assisted suicide for terminally ill people?

Can't answer that, can ya?

Yes I can, because the legislators are fucking morons. Assisted suicide SHOULD be illegal.

After watching her mother decay into a demeaning, demented doddering dotage due to Alzheimers (alliteration goes SWISH!), my mother told me point blank that if she gets it, kill her. And I told her that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, to let me die rather than have the body go on in a bestial state.

Dumbass.

Ron Paul is personally against all abortions, but he has said numerous times he would NEVER outlaw the procedure, he just wants each state to make that decision for themselves.

The same logic that makes such a regulation abhorrant at the federal level also applies at the state level. But to see that requires thinking too much for yourself than you appear able to accomplish.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Yes I can, because the legislators are fucking morons. Assisted suicide SHOULD be illegal.

After watching her mother decay into a demeaning, demented doddering dotage due to Alzheimers (alliteration goes SWISH!), my mother told me point blank that if she gets it, kill her. And I told her that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, to let me die rather than have the body go on in a bestial state.

Dumbass.



The same logic that makes such a regulation abhorrant at the federal level also applies at the state level. But to see that requires thinking too much for yourself than you appear able to accomplish.

I never espoused whether or not it SHOULD be legal. You stated that "everyone's body is their own to do with as they wish". That's not exactly true, now is it? Simpleton.

And Roe. V Wade is NOT a "regulation". It's not a law. It's a supreme court decision, NOT the will of the people.

 

[bare_pussy]

And I told her that if I suffer a catastrophic brain injury, to let me die rather than have the body go on in a bestial state.

God forbid

 

[ubertroll]

The other states with liberal welfare programs looked around and sure enough, they found themselves a magnet for welfare mothers. Needless to say most of those states with the liberal programs were the larger, more prosperous states. Sooo, senators like Dirksen and Moynihan contrived to share the wealth so to speak. Because the parties of their respective state legislatures decided to engage in a bidding war, welfare for votes, putting the state budgets in jeopardy, they figured out a way to get those dollars from other states.

The problem with your demented worldview is that it doesn't fit the economic facts. The 'liberal' states' citizens contribute substantially more money to the Federal government in taxes that they receive in federal benefits like roads and welfare.

It is, in fact, the states with no safety net towards single women and their innocent children who have their economies and budgets subsidized by the government, because they have disproportionately large extraction resource industries that receive massive amounts of federal aid, dwarfing welfare to the needy in spite of the fact that the recipients of this aid, by definition, are landowners with six and seven digit (and more) net worths.

Your math doesn't work, and numbers cannot lie.

 

[Ishmael]

The same logic that makes such a regulation abhorrant at the federal level also applies at the state level. But to see that requires thinking too much for yourself than you appear able to accomplish.

So what's your solution? Benevolent dictatorship?

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

I never espoused whether or not it SHOULD be legal. You stated that "everyone's body is their own to do with as they wish". That's not exactly true, now is it?

?

I'm saying a law is unjust. Just as I am free to smoke or drink, I should be free to do marijuana, have a child with my girl, not have a child with my girl, kill myself, et cetra et cetra et cetra.

The laws against assisted suicide are as unjust as the laws in Georgia forbidding women from having vibrators.




Editted to add: God damn, it finally hit me: you're so slow you actually don't realize you're slow, because you're not quick enough to even see people blowing by you.

 

[ubertroll]

So what's your solution? Benevolent dictatorship?

Ishmael

No, de-fang the state governments AND the Federal government of all powers and programs governments shouldn't have--like the promulgation or promotion of religion, invasions of my personal privacy or sovereignty, or giving something to my neighbor he didn't work for (i.e. no bid contracts going to Halliburton because some schmuck in government is being bribed by them, in this case the VP).

 

[Ishmael]

No, de-fang the state governments AND the Federal government of all powers and programs governments shouldn't have--like the promulgation or promotion of religion, invasions of my personal privacy or sovereignty, or giving something to my neighbor he didn't work for (i.e. no bid contracts going to Halliburton because some schmuck in government is being bribed by them, in this case the VP).

Go back to Israel and run on that program sparky.

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

?

I'm saying a law is unjust. Just as I am free to smoke or drink, I should be free to do marijuana, have a child with my girl, not have a child with my girl, kill myself, et cetra et cetra et cetra.

The laws against assisted suicide are as unjust as the laws in Georgia forbidding women from having vibrators.




Editted to add: God damn, it finally hit me: you're so slow you actually don't realize you're slow, because you're not quick enough to even see people blowing by you.

You idiot. You sound exactly like a libertarian.

Your insults and complete diversion away from the question only prove that you are indeed a simpleton.