You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Best non-answer yet. Bravo sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Best non-answer yet. Bravo sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You sir are making the argument, I don't have to prove a thing.
Saved me some typing, THANKS!
Really guys? You would make terrible prosecutors.
Prosecution: Guilty!
Defense: Prove it!
Prosecution: Uh, um, er...because I said so, that's why!
Judge: Case dismissed!
It's a debate of ideas, not a court of law. Interesting that you see yourself being prosecuted. Just because you seem to be outnumbered.
OK ;I'll chime in... I have seen no evidence that budget trimming proposed would deny babies food or diapers.
Court or not the rules work the same, if you make a charge the burden of proof is on you. There is no burden on me to disprove something you haven't provided any evidence for.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Wondergirl implied Romney would take away food and diapers from children, you and ex joined in. I asked, "OK, what are these social services we're allegedly taking away that's going to deny a child food and diapers? I don't know of any."
Well, what are they? Don't accuse me of not taking care of my own if you can't back it up.
Check Tal's post #293.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's simple, really... Romney hasn't said HOW he's going to pay for the tax cuts he's going to give to the unbelievably rich. So, some really smart people just did some simple math and figured out that if his programs are implemented, cuts from programs the poor count on are the ONLY place the money can come from...
So, if Romney isn't specific about which programs he's going to cut, why should we be?? But, we CAN add.
excon
We have the Equal Rights Amendment. We have Title IX. We have all kinds of rules and laws in place pertaining to equal pay for equal work and fairness in the work place. It is presently illegal to practice discrimination in hiring, treatment and compensation for women and other protected classes such as the disabled and minorities. We don't need another law to do this. We do need greater access to the legal system so that it's accessible and affordable to disenfranchised people, so they can pursue their rights more vigorously.
It is admirable to want to take care of everyone as a society and I agree we should provide temporary safety nets such as unemployment and wellfare to help people in crisis. We should not have policies that make "crisis" a lifestyle, particularly not a generational lifestyle. In my home city of Chicago, we are seeing more murder than is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, all in poor, wellfare-dependent neighborhoods. Wellfare can be a hand up out of a temporary hardship or it can become a lifestyle and a trap which keeps people down. I don't know the answer, but somehow we need to shift people from wellfare to jobs.
Disability is also in trouble as a safety net. I know of people who are on disability but working manual labor jobs for cash. I also know a man who is over 60 and so seriously ill, he will never work again. He is sleeping on his brother's couch and has been turned down twice for disability benefits after working all his life as a truck driver. He has had a heart attack and a stroke and now has a brain tumor, but he can't get disability. The system is corrupt. Those who shouldn't get it, those who should can't get it. There needs to be a fairness and urgency to getting this benefit to those who legitimately need it, and a focus on shifting those who could be retrained for a job they are able to do into such training and jobs. For example, I have a relative who is in his early 20s and broke several bones in his foot so can no longer do a labor job he used to do - too much time standing and walking and putting undo pressure on the foot. But he can type. He can use a telephone. He can sell things. He can do all sorts of jobs that permit him to sit in a chair. He could go to college and learn an office job. He will probably be on disability all his life because he has no personal motivation, and the system will put up with him doing so. Is it hateful toward him for having an injury to say, "hey, you need some time to learn a new job - here's a program where you can get retrained for free - then you need to get a job you can reasonably do...we'll take care of you for a while but don't get too comfortable with this arrangement". I think he'd have a lot more esteem and live at a far higher standard of living if he worked. Disability keeps him at a poverty level, barely getting by.
I also hear shouting that Republican arguments against things like Obama's plan for free contraception is a "woman hating" policy. Well, this is the thing - his policy covers prescriptions only - not condoms. Prescription birth control is not innocuous. Read the package insert some time. It can cause blood clots which can in turn cause heart attacks, stroke and other complications. The hormones can exacerbate a variety of medical conditions. If someone is a smoker or has other pre-existing conditions it can be particularly dangerous, and if they aren't responsible about it and get pregnant but keep taking it, it can cause horrific birth defects. Pregnancy is 100% avoidable without contraception and it does not require a virginal, celibate lifestyle. Contraception has it's place, but it's not a panacea and is not the answer to unplanned pregnancy. People who get pregnant by accident have typically not chosen to use birth control, have misused it, or it has failed. This is not an economic issue - it's a personal responsibility issue. It's not a woman's issue exclusively, either. If I thought free contraception would even make a dent in the unplanned pregnancy problem I'd start doling it out myself. It won't - it's not the answer.
There are those among us who don't feel that every woman needs, wants or will be helped by free contraception. Poor people can already get it from a variety of non-profit organizations. Average or high income people can pay for it themselves. I'm more concerned about people like my parents who are too old to hope for improved income but pay hundreds of dollars a month from medically necessary prescriptions. Why am I contributing to free contraception for 20 something's instead of to the statin drugs that keep my parents alive and independent?
The "war on women" is a myth. The war is against fraudulent claims and political goofiness... the idea that governmenet is a big front-door for trick-or-treating to get whatever special interest populations want. It is the government's role to step in and help those unable to work and support themselves but not to provide for every need for every special group for free. Free pills for half the population? Ridiculous.
#293 would be your post. No. 294 is rhetoric with no supporting evidence. No 297 is what I quoted of his that is the straw man implying I don't support my own. Prove it, any of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Apparently the post numbers aren't standardized from computer to computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Thank you for proving my point, you have no evidence, you have assumptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Dude, your side has real issues with math. Besides that, one of the quotes you guys just took out of context was his comment on the poor, to which he said if the safety net needs fixing he would do so. No one wants to hurt the poor and take away food and diapers from babies. If you really believe that you have worse issues than math.Quote:
So, if Romney isn't specific about which programs he's going to cut, why should we be?? But, we CAN add.
OK, let's see Romney's math. How are the tax cuts going to be paid for?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Romney will say --- by the tax revenues generated as the money gained by lower taxes is invested in the economy (thereby generating tax revenue).Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This is the standard reply. Only problem is - nobody has ever proven the truth of this theory. It originated with a fellow by the name of Arthur Laffer (the Laffer curve) whose theories have been called voodoo economics. Even the Wall Street Journal, hardly an icon of the Left, dismissed Laffer's ideas during the Reagan administration.
Again, the issue at hand is whether Romney is going to take food and diapers away from babies. Someone make their case or withdraw the charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
We don't know yet. The strong possibility is there. Should we vote him in and watch what happens?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Thank you. Then how about we discuss what's actually on the table instead of baseless, emotional arguments like Romney is going to take food and diapers from babies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I haven't seen anything on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's a figure of speech.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 AM. |