Ok

When you say the welfare state what are you implying?

(12-23-2013 11:51 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok

When you say the welfare state what are you implying?

It means a lot of things Mach but lets start with this..

A system which is openly antagonistic towards those of faith who wish to help their fellow man.

Quote:Govt - "What you want to run a charity to feed people"
Char - "That's right sir"
Govt - "Will you employ people"
Char - "That's right sir"
Govt - "Will you employ gays and give employees birth control"
Char - "I can't do that sir, they go against m,y beleifs but I will feed anyone who comes:
Govt - "I'm sorry we have to fine you and shut you down"..

(12-23-2013 11:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've never shied away from it. We have toooooooo many kids right now with lousy parents. Last thing we need is more.

You are a damn teacher, for god's sake man, be more tolerant.

I'm saying once they are born if they can not be fed it is up to us as a society to provide that. It's not a good situation because when you rely upon the good graces of a society sometimes things fall through the cracks. Try as best as we can sometimes political forces don't want to see as an efficient govt. as possible. We want to starve the beast per say. It is in my judgement that most people when provided an opportunity to experience a relationship in a sexual manner that the ramifications of a fertilized gamete isn't priority number one on their list.

Hence and therefore,


Let's provide the contraceptives because they are a hell of a lot cheaper than a fertilized zygote that will grow up malnourished, undereducated, and in poverty.

(12-23-2013 12:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hence and therefore,


Let's provide the contraceptives because they are a hell of a lot cheaper than a fertilized zygote that will grow up malnourished, undereducated, and in poverty.

Who the f'uck draws the line. So only well to do people deserve children. You really want gov't to decide. You are off the reservation here.

(12-23-2013 12:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm saying once they are born if they can not be fed it is up to us as a society to provide that.

Some logical fails with the implication here..

1 - Society does not equal government

2 - Does society own them an Obamaphone? Does It include help with the cable Bill A mother with two children in New York is able to collect $38,004 per year in welfare handouts. This is greater than the starting salary of a teacher in the state. Hawaii is the most generous with benefits a mother of two "earns" $60,590 per year

There are *83* federal welfare programs!

There should be *AT MOST* four Mach. Food stamps (or a box of food), Rent Assistance, Welfare (Enough for goodwill cloths very basic things), Basic Utility help

Quote:It's not a good situation because when you rely upon the good graces of a society sometimes things fall through the cracks.

Well its a good thing the war on poverty has made things soooo much better for people.

Quote:It is in my judgement that most people when provided an opportunity to experience a relationship in a sexual manner that the ramifications of a fertilized gamete isn't priority number one on their list.

Their impropriety does not dehumanize the result. In fact downs syndrome does not dehumanize the result..

The govt isn't deciding they are providing contraceptives. We are not talking sterilization my good man. We are providing alternatives to people who didn't think through the ramifications of a moments pleasure.

(12-23-2013 12:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The govt isn't deciding they are providing contraceptives. We are not talking sterilization my good man. We are providing alternatives to people who didn't think through the ramifications of a moments pleasure.

OK, what f'ucked up people in society do you want to decide?

You can tap-dance all you want, but it is a life and death decisions. Providing is deciding. It does cross the line.

What we should debate should be access, not providing. In a safe clinical environment.

So "conservatives" are of the opinion that corporations have religious beliefs that are protected under the first amendment?

(12-23-2013 12:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  So "conservatives" are of the opinion that corporations have religious beliefs that are protected under the first amendment?

I am of the opinion that the majority owners of corporation have that right... If a company does not want to hire Christians or whites they should be allowed to do with their property what they care to do.