Why the Libertarians can't get shit done

[TurdFergeson]

Have you actually read the constitution? Seriously, I mean read it. The whole thing. Or do you just parrot what other people tell you that fits your preconceptions?

Let's say that some interpretations of the Document claim it is a right, as in sovereignty over one's own body.

Seems to be a major discrepency between that and things like assisted suicide, which is illegal , (and has been upheld as illegal) by the same Court.

So, the USSC needs to make up it's mind on the right of personal sovereignty.

They say "abortion is a right throughout the USA, but assisted suicide is not".

Seems just a tad bit hypocritical. Either every individual has a right over their own body, or they do not. No?

 

[Ishmael]

I'm just waiting for the day the legit black posters back you ass up. It ain't happen'n so far. Ain't happen'd in years now, has LT?

No one's backed your lying ass up. No one.

'We', and I do mean "WE" act in concert against you. Your best potential political allies think you're a joke. Best to stay away from those that don't agree with you, ya think?

Nah, you don't.

Ishmael

 

[TurdFergeson]

I'm just waiting for the day the legit black posters back you ass up. It ain't happen'n so far. Ain't happen'd in years now, has LT?

No one's backed your lying ass up. No one.

'We', and I do mean "WE" act in concert against you. Your best potential political allies think you're a joke. Best to stay away from those that don't agree with you, ya think?

Nah, you don't.

Ishmael

Who cares? We're on to bigger fish now than you two minnows.

 

[ubertroll]

They say "abortion is a right throughout the USA, but assisted suicide is not".

Yes, and Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death!" but owned slaves.

Advocating a right, or group of rights, but not being able to fully embrace its implications does not disparage the group of rights.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Yes, and Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death!" but owned slaves.

Advocating a right, or group of rights, but not being able to fully embrace its implications does not disparage the group of rights.

It just seems astonishing that the Court would uphold the right to in some cases kill another viable human being in an abortion, but not allow people to abort their own lives.

Extreme hypocrisy there, and falling on the side of , IMO, inhumanitarianism.

"Free state sponsored abortions for poor people, but don't dare think about having a medical professional abort you at your own expense to end your suffering."

Strange, almost like there's a hidden agenda somewhere.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, and Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death!" but owned slaves.

Advocating a right, or group of rights, but not being able to fully embrace its implications does not disparage the group of rights.

Let's dig the son of a bitch up and prosecute him. And David and Solomon along with him.

Fucking juvenile.

Ishmael

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm just waiting for the day the legit black posters back you ass up. It ain't happen'n so far. Ain't happen'd in years now, has LT?

No one's backed your lying ass up. No one.

'We', and I do mean "WE" act in concert against you. Your best potential political allies think you're a joke. Best to stay away from those that don't agree with you, ya think?

Nah, you don't.

Ishmael

Can you find one black person who even talks to you, aside from me?

 

[ubertroll]

"Free state sponsored abortions for poor people, but don't dare think about having a medical professional abort you at your own expense to end your suffering."

You really have no idea what you're talking about now. State sponsored? Sorry, bub, but we're talking privately financed here.

You're living in a dream world where a totalitarian government has had all three branches of government have been controlled by the likes of Code Pink for twenty years.

There's really no point in anyone talking to you since you refuse to acknowledge empirical fact, in favor of your own persecution fantasy.

 

[TurdFergeson]

You really have no idea what you're talking about now. State sponsored? Sorry, bub, but we're talking privately financed here.

You're living in a dream world where a totalitarian government has had all three branches of government have been controlled by the likes of Code Pink for twenty years.

There's really no point in anyone talking to you since you refuse to acknowledge empirical fact, in favor of your own persecution fantasy.

Have you even bothered to read this thread? The likes of you and others WANT free abortions for poor people.

And don't even act like clinics don't get federal money to operate.

Proof:

"...whereas in the United States free abortion is largely dependent on being a Medicaid patient and living in a state which finances the operations."

http://books.google.com/books?id=eD...Q2QX4JA&sig=bDSP50WkqBJXpxEvt4WI9uyPsMM&hl=en


There's no point in showing any facts to you, because you're intent on being ignorant.


You also really do seem to have a hidden anti-humanitarian agenda. Kill off all the poor people you despise, apparently, while still in the womb.

Classist.

 

[ubertroll]

Have you even bothered to read this thread? The likes of you and others WANT free abortions for poor people.

No, the likes of me is disgusted by the fact that, thanks to the un-Christian, self-centered Right, there are still abortions that happen in this country for the simple reason that the mother is too poor to care fo a(nother) child.

And don't even act like clinics don't get federal money to operate.

The citation you give, from a book I've never heard of is so brief, out of context, and unsourced that I cannot speak to whatever the fuck the author was trying to say.

 

[phrodeau]

Can you find one black person who even talks to you, aside from me?

That was so far beside the point, it wasn't even in the same county.

 

[bare_pussy]

Clinics don't get federal money, in the US or in impoverished countries.

Also, screw "un-Christian" and not helping the poor...how about an educated society failing to provide the necessary life skills to help people KNOW about the BASIC facts of life. Obviously the policies in place aren't working, cuz 25% of teenage girls have HPV.

The number of abortions taking place has been decreasing since the early 90s, but STD transmission is up. Why? We fail at communicating with people who believe they're invincible as it is. Couple this with the decreased ability of women to receive, let alone afford, proper medical care anymore, and it's a great combination in the early 21st century.

 

[ubertroll]

Incidentally, in a much more robustly sourced document,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_us

21.3% of abortions are strictly due to being unable to afford a baby. So in other words, a more comprehensive national education and childcare system could prevent millions of abortions--substantially more abortions than are prevented by the political posturing of the so-called "pro-life" movement. Which is why I call them anti-choice.

 

[TurdFergeson]

No, the likes of me is disgusted by the fact that, thanks to the un-Christian, self-centered Right, there are still abortions that happen in this country for the simple reason that the mother is too poor to care fo a(nother) child.



The citation you give, from a book I've never heard of is so brief, out of context, and unsourced that I cannot speak to whatever the fuck the author was trying to say.

I admire that first sentiment. But I often wonder why 3rd world countries have such higher birthrates, despite being so much poorer than the poorest in the USA. Purely because of cost of living?

Clinics don't get federal money, in the US or in impoverished countries.

The book was actually on the mark, according to the ACLU:

"At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html

OK, the Federal gov. does have restrictions, but they do still sometimes pay.

And many states provide public funding voluntarily, with much less restriction, according to that ACLU site.

Also, screw "un-Christian" and not helping the poor...how about an educated society failing to provide the necessary life skills to help people KNOW about the BASIC facts of life. Obviously the policies in place aren't working, cuz 25% of teenage girls have HPV.

The number of abortions taking place has been decreasing since the early 90s, but STD transmission is up. Why? We fail at communicating with people who believe they're invincible as it is. Couple this with the decreased ability of women to receive, let alone afford, proper medical care anymore, and it's a great combination in the early 21st century.

This is interesting. A gradual "dumbing down", or even complete brainwashing or mental conditioning of society?

21.3% of abortions are strictly due to being unable to afford a baby.

Again, wouldn't this be directly related to increased cost of living in the USA, since very poor countries have much higher birthrates and population growth rates? Or is there more?

 

[ubertroll]

I admire that first sentiment. But I often wonder why 3rd world countries have such higher birthrates, despite being so much poorer than the poorest in the USA. Purely because of cost of living?

No family planning. No cheap, widely available reliable form of birth control. Backward social mores.

"At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/16393res20040721.html

Yes, not for abortions on demand. Medicaid pays for when people are the victims of a crime, or when they are in a situation of physical hazard, to cover a medical procedure--the fact that the treatment is an abortion is irrelevant.

Again, wouldn't this be directly related to increased cost of living in the USA, since very poor countries have much higher birthrates and population growth rates? Or is there more?

The cost of living in the US is substantially LOWER than in many parts of Europe--but there, socialized medicine, that boogeyman of the Right, makes sure that no women have to abort a pregnancy simply because she cannot afford to have a child. Hence, I lay blame for 21.3% of abortions in the US squarely at the feet of the Christian right, and its refusal to help the poor, even in times of the direst needs of the innocent.

Jesus would be pissed.

You know, if I hadn't killed him. (Bitch owed me money)

 

[sigh]

So what's your solution? Benevolent dictatorship?

Ishmael

I think I'd prefer a benevolent monarchy myself. It'd make the succession thing less disruptive.

 

[TurdFergeson]

No family planning. No cheap, widely available reliable form of birth control. Backward social mores.



Yes, not for abortions on demand. Medicaid pays for when people are the victims of a crime, or when they are in a situation of physical hazard, to cover a medical procedure--the fact that the treatment is an abortion is irrelevant.

The cost of living in the US is substantially LOWER than in many parts of Europe--but there, socialized medicine, that boogeyman of the Right, makes sure that no women have to abort a pregnancy simply because she cannot afford to have a child. Hence, I lay blame for 21.3% of abortions in the US squarely at the feet of the Christian right, and its refusal to help the poor, even in times of the direst needs of the innocent.

Jesus would be pissed.

You know, if I hadn't killed him. (Bitch owed me money)

It seems like it all ties into cost of living. The Europeans must not have abortions as often because of other social programs than strictly medicine, like food banks and housing.

Still , modern Nations like Australia actually provide monetary incentives for their citizens to breed, because they are having a problem of negative population growth.

Goes back to a paradox I noticed, why do "wealthy" Nations have lower birthrates and population growth than poor countries?

Has to be more than just birth control and morals.

 

[bare_pussy]

...because there is a direct correlation between a woman's level of education and the number of spawn she will produce. Not always, but there is a strong link between being well educated and having fewer children, spaced further apart.

 

[TurdFergeson]

...because there is a direct correlation between a woman's level of education and the number of spawn she will produce. Not always, but there is a strong link between being well educated and having fewer children, spaced further apart.

I have heard of this correlation.

But does this have to do more with increased knowledge in general, or a higher education meaning a greater career than family orientation?

 

[bare_pussy]

most "educated" women were able to have access to the info needed to avoid getting knocked up.

also, they're less likely to be married young, and in turn reproduce younger.

they also have partners who understand why having fewer children spaced out further apart is more economically sound.

additionally, in poor nations, most women need a bunch of kids - they can work the farm, help with making goods to sell, etc. it's a family and an enterprise like it was back in the day here. most early americans had a lot of kids because of the farm work and because you never knew how many would live to see their teens.

 

[TurdFergeson]

most "educated" women were able to have access to the info needed to avoid getting knocked up.

also, they're less likely to be married young, and in turn reproduce younger.

they also have partners who understand why having fewer children spaced out further apart is more economically sound.

additionally, in poor nations, most women need a bunch of kids - they can work the farm, help with making goods to sell, etc. it's a family and an enterprise like it was back in the day here. most early americans had a lot of kids because of the farm work and because you never knew how many would live to see their teens.

I think the trend is brainwashing Americans to have less kids, and fill the population gap with immigrants who will work cheaper and thereby lower the standard of living, while boosting profit margins of corporations.

If more educated people have more kids, they will refuse to work for peanuts and will want more than immigrants.

Just a theory. Also having in almost all cases both parents work doubles the tax revenue.

 

[ubertroll]

It seems like it all ties into cost of living. The Europeans must not have abortions as often because of other social programs than strictly medicine, like food banks and housing.

... Do you even have numbers on abortions in European countries? Let alone in the US, where numbers are unreliable because reporting is not mandatory, and, in some cases distinctly contrary to the interests of the patient.

Goes back to a paradox I noticed, why do "wealthy" Nations have lower birthrates and population growth than poor countries?

Family planning, availability of birth control, education, employment for women giving them possibilities for social mobility OTHER than being a baby factory. Take your pick.

We COULD reverse those trends. We'd just have to ban women from working, learning to read, or using birth control.

 

[TurdFergeson]

... Do you even have numbers on abortions in European countries? Let alone in the US, where numbers are unreliable because reporting is not mandatory, and, in some cases distinctly contrary to the interests of the patient.

Family planning, availability of birth control, education, employment for women giving them possibilities for social mobility OTHER than being a baby factory. Take your pick.

We COULD reverse those trends. We'd just have to ban women from working, learning to read, or using birth control.

I believed you. You stated that Europeans have less abortions due to the fact that their socialized medicine makes the mothers more able to afford their children.

I find it difficult to believe that birth control doesn't exist in any 3rd world countries. Even if it did, I think the people would choose to have more offspring regardless, because they have some internal desire to keep humanity alive.

Any other species will have smaller broods , if any, during "hard times'.

Humans in poor countries have larger broods during hard times, because I think (in theory), there is some type of innate desire to keep human DNA alive at all costs. Why? Hard to say. But it probably has something to do with Earth being seeded.

And someone being a "baby factory" gave you your life, never disparage that "profession".

 

[ubertroll]

I think the trend is brainwashing Americans to have less kids, and fill the population gap with immigrants who will work cheaper and thereby lower the standard of living, while boosting profit margins of corporations.

1) Fewer, not less. People are indivisible.

2) You're talking out of your ass without any empirical basis whatsoever.

3) You drank the kool aid

4) Turn off Fox Nudes.

 

[TurdFergeson]

1) Fewer, not less. People are indivisible.

2) You're talking out of your ass without any empirical basis whatsoever.

3) You drank the kool aid

4) Turn off Fox Nudes.

Nope. I'm afraid it's true. Almost all the population growth in the USA is from immigration. The birth vs. death rate is about even , as it is in most wealthy or modern countries. Look it up.

Take off your blinders.