Quote :

" (or should be) something she can be charged with"

you are a sociopath

3/26/2014 9:32:31 AM

for smoking crack while pregnant, possibly resulting in the death of her baby? that should be punished severely.

^you are a troll.

[Edited on March 26, 2014 at 9:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/26/2014 9:56:21 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, she hasn't suffered enough. "

what a terrible argument. would you say the same if a parent abused their kid to death? aww, they lost their kid... they are already suffering enough.

3/26/2014 9:57:46 AM

there is no evidence the cocaine or marijuana contributed to the death of the fetus. If they want to prosecute her for drug use that is up to them, but it has nothing to do with a stillbirth.

If your wife had a stillbirth and her doctor found out that she ate cold deli meats, soft cheese, drank caffeine, had some wine, or anything else not recommended should she be prosecuted for murder?

3/26/2014 10:04:40 AM

^^You said, yourself:

Quote :

"read the article... doesn't sound like there is evidence that the crack killed the baby"

And now:

Quote :

"for smoking crack while pregnant, possibly resulting in the death of her baby? that should be punished severely. "

Which is it?

3/26/2014 10:29:55 AM

Quote :

" If they want to prosecute her for drug use that is up to them,"

Quote :

"doesn't sound like there is evidence that the crack killed the baby, but there has to be (or should be) something she can be charged with [for smoking crack while pregnant]."

3/26/2014 11:42:25 AM

So this is just a matter of any arbitrary test administered by a doctor being used to prosecute you for drug use?

Oh conservatives...

3/26/2014 12:21:17 PM

I would like to see this woman punished, but murder seems like an overreach.

3/26/2014 12:43:31 PM

So smoking crack while pregnant did not contribute to the death of this child, but she should be charged with something more serious than "smoking crack".

does not compute.

3/26/2014 12:50:42 PM

if you don't see the problem with a pregnant lady smoking crack there is no hope for you.

3/26/2014 11:15:20 PM

Quote :

"http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm [quote]Move more welfare recipients off the welfare rolls. (Sep 2004) "

[/quote]
That's not a policy of "never help the poor". Remember:

Quote :

""Gov't shouldn't create a giant welfare state" is not the same as "fuck the poor, no one should ever give them any money or help"."

Quote :

"conveniently ignore. AGAIN. "

Why am I going to respond to something that is, at best, barely tangentially related to the discussion? Going on a diatribe about what you say is a republican belief is a strawman, itself, and it doesn't address the fact that "fuck the poor, no one should ever help them, ever" is NOT a Reublican platform.

Quote :

"Voter Id: mike turzai http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/ Poor people: Mitt Romney http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/the-lesson-of-mitt-romneys-47-percent-video-be-nice-to-the-wait-staff/blogEntry?id=18725878 There are more, but I'm working and can't be digging up links for you for things you should already know."

Neither of those links have a Republican saying anything resembling "our policy is 'fuck the poor, no one should ever help them'". You're really bad at this.

3/27/2014 12:47:55 AM

You're really reaching to say those aren't examples of republicans being blatantly anti-poor.

Do you understand how language works??

3/27/2014 2:40:04 AM

Quote :

"for smoking crack while pregnant, possibly resulting in the death of her baby? that should be punished severely."

So should a woman caught drinking while pregnant be charged with child abuse?

What if I have a car accident with a pregnant woman, i'm at fault, she miscarries; would i then be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

3/27/2014 8:26:05 AM

Quote :

"if you don't see the problem with a pregnant lady smoking crack there is no hope for you."

I see a problem with women smoking cigarettes while pregnant but I'm not compelled to let the State tell them they can't.

[Edited on March 27, 2014 at 8:42 AM. Reason : .]

3/27/2014 8:41:31 AM

Quote :

"Why am I going to respond to something that is, at best, barely tangentially related to the discussion? Going on a diatribe about what you say is a republican belief is a strawman, itself, and it doesn't address the fact that "fuck the poor, no one should ever help them, ever" is NOT a Reublican platform."

I disagree with what you're saying, so therefore what you're saying is a strawman. Strawman, strawman, strawman.

3/27/2014 9:58:05 AM

Quote :

"That's not a policy of "never help the poor". Remember: ""Gov't shouldn't create a giant welfare state" is not the same as "fuck the poor, no one should ever give them any money or help"." "conveniently ignore. AGAIN. ""

I would totally be a Republican... if there was any substance to what is being said here at all.

For the following, I get up on soapbox and speak in a booming voice:
I believe that an egalitarian society is possible on market principles. We can have a strong middle class without sacrificing any of our other values! A virtuous cycle that results in nearly the elimination of poverty is possible, and that should be our goal.

But we're not doing that. Not only will conservative politicians not talk about the following graph, but individual Republicans seem to be allergic to it:



A results-based approach is better, I agree. Let's not have welfare, and also not have poverty! Yay!

But we are not getting such outcomes, and Republicans are most-of-all responsible for the irresponsible government across the board. There's no better example than the rules (not generosity of) welfare. Republicans are almost always in favor of making our social programs more complicated. I blame them for the craptastic mess we have. You know what makes people dependent on these programs? Complicated rules that threaten to make them ineligible when they get a job. Republicans (out of the 2) are vastly more responsible for this.

You know what else would get us better outcomes in the fight against poverty without raiding government coffers? Leaving abortion decisions to the people who are pregnant in the first place.

Restrictions on abortion come down to government bureaucracy. Just let people live their own damn lives.

3/27/2014 10:21:24 AM

if you include what employers pay for benefits, it tracks with productivity

3/27/2014 10:30:38 AM

Then use the GINI index instead.

3/27/2014 10:43:15 AM

Quote :

"But overall employee compensation — including health and retirement benefits — has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunday-review/americas-productivity-climbs-but-wages-stagnate.html?_r=0



I wonder what TWW's average salary is...

3/27/2014 5:10:52 PM

Corporate profits are at record highs, but this seems most likely due to the demise of the small business. Small businesses can't compete on price, and the average worker doesn't really have the disposable income to buy on principles. Not to mention the amount of R&D that has to go into creating new products is astronomical, so small businesses are stuck reselling corporate goods anyway.

It seems that cities where local shops and restaurants have thrived have become a tourist attraction. Odd, and sad, that it's become a special occasion for people to indulge in goods that were partially produced locally.

Couple this with the fact that robots have already decimated manufacturing, and computers will start to eat into blue collar and skilled workers' jobs (http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2014/03/learning-live-machines) , and you have a major issue if we keep looking at wealth, capital, and income like we have for the past few decades. It's not logical, and our politicians are too dumb and old to think outside of their boxes.

Billionaire investors have already become the gatekeepers for new technologies, even a 100,000 from kick starter is barely enough to get something off the ground, we're at the point where corporations control most of the aspects in our lives.

It's sad that it's an accomplishment for a McDonalds to open in another country. Why should it be celebrated that people can buy unhealthy, mass produced, bland food and drinks to the detriment of local variety and culture?

And how did this discussion end up in an abortion thread....

[Edited on March 27, 2014 at 5:20 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2014 5:18:36 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/justice/texas-abortion-law-court/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


One state I won't be moving too. Texas just needs to implement Sharia law an get it over with. Almost ironic how much in common christian "conservatives" have with all the islamic nations that they are so eager to advocate wars against.

3/27/2014 10:18:19 PM

Lol at you comparing attempts to save lives to sanctioned rape.

3/28/2014 8:09:03 AM

Quote :

"Lol at you comparing attempts to save lives to sanctioned rape."

What the fuck...I don't even...

3/28/2014 8:36:43 AM

I find it closer to making a life than saving one. Or more accurately, making someone else make a life.

...which reveals the absurdity of looking at such legislation as an accomplishment. Unrestricted and irresponsible reproduction was always a feature of nature. The only accomplishment worth boasting about is giving one of those children a decent start at life.

3/28/2014 9:20:12 AM

Quote :

"Lol at you comparing attempts to save lives to sanctioned rape."

Attempt at a joke?

3/28/2014 10:30:00 AM

I think he thinks that Sharia means "sanctioned rape" and is completely oblivious to the popular, well-funded attempt to turn the US into a Christian Saudi Arabia.

3/28/2014 11:56:39 AM

Regardless of what you think of Christians, they are against abortion because in their mind, they are saving lives. What part of Sharia law can you dig up that is comparable to an attempt at saving a life?

3/28/2014 1:32:23 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of what you think of Christians, they are against abortion because in their mind, they are saving lives."

Lol no they aren't. They are against abortion because those dirty sluts need to face the consequences of their shameful actions, otherwise there wouldn't be a rape exception.

What part of Sharia Law revolves around keeping them sluts in check? All of it.

3/28/2014 1:47:11 PM

^^ i don't think you know what sharia law is...

3/28/2014 2:43:10 PM

Quote :

"I think he thinks that Sharia means "sanctioned rape" and is completely oblivious to the popular, well-funded attempt to turn the US into a Christian Saudi Arabia."

LOL good call....

Quote :

"They are against abortion because those dirty sluts need to face the consequences of their shameful actions, otherwise there wouldn't be a rape exception."

Except it is the rest of society that faces the consequences when this dirty slut applies for welfare, food stamps, and other forms of social assistance. These same "conservatives" will be the loudest ones bitching about this as well.

3/28/2014 4:08:21 PM

All the while their holy books that instill the "pro-life" morality in them actually demand they support the poor.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.

[Edited on March 28, 2014 at 4:13 PM. Reason : s]

3/28/2014 4:12:48 PM

^ Republican Jesus disagrees

3/28/2014 4:41:21 PM

3/28/2014 4:49:28 PM

Quote :

"You're really reaching to say those aren't examples of republicans being blatantly anti-poor."

Again, we're back to the liberal talking points of "if you don't agree with me, it means you hate [group X]". It's pathetic. And it still doesn't show the basic thing I've asked for: Republicans saying that no one should ever help the poor.

Quote :

"I disagree with what you're saying, so therefore what you're saying is a strawman. Strawman, strawman, strawman."

You need to look up the definition of a strawman, because you clearly don't know what it is. If you put words into another person's mouth and then attack those words, it's a strawman.




oh, and I'm surprised the texas thing survived. it's pretty obviously an attempt to make a de facto abortion ban in most of the state.

3/28/2014 8:56:50 PM

Strawman

3/28/2014 10:33:00 PM

Why can't Republicans cast into exile the whole Christian part of their base

Quote :

"As the 2014 election season gears up—and various politicians start floating the possibility of a 2016 presidential run—the question of what Republicans need to do about the religious right is only getting more serious. It’s become apparent that the religious right is an electoral albatross for Republicans. The invention of the “Tea Party” reflected this desire to bamboozle the press into forgetting that the Republican Party is controlled by a bunch of right-wing Christians, by floating this narrative that this new insurgence of conservative energy was somehow more about economic conservatism than social conservatism. That narrative has basically collapsed in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party’s main impact is encouraging Republican primary voters to back even more embarrassingly Bible-thumping candidates than usual, from Ted Cruz to Christine O’Donnell. It’s impossible to ignore that the biggest result of the supposed Tea Party revolution has been to refocus Republican energies on attacking abortion rights and expanding the war on women to include attacks on previously non-controversial issues, such as insurance coverage of birth control and maternity care. Turns out the “Tea Party” was the same old religious right people know and loathe. The religious right is increasingly a problem for the Republican Party. But it’s not one they can get rid of without creating even more problems for themselves."

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/the_gops_huge_2014_problem_the_religious_right_is_still_calling_the_shots_partner/

This article has a point, the "Tea-Bag" party which was supposed to be a grass-roots reaction to Obama being elected with a platform for economic conervatism has somehow transformed/devolved into a stage for all the bible-thumping crazies to have a larger stage to push their american version of sharia law onto the populace.

[Edited on March 28, 2014 at 11:30 PM. Reason : 1]

3/28/2014 11:24:50 PM

Asking for:

"Republicans saying that no one should ever help the poor."

in response to the claim that

Quote :

"republicans being blatantly anti-poor"

...what kind of logical fallacy is that again?

3/29/2014 2:44:11 PM

Quote :

" If you put words into another person's mouth and then attack those words, it's a strawman. "

not quite. taking someone's argument and then deliberately distorting it, to the point that it'sridiculous is a strawman

3/29/2014 11:42:55 PM

disco_stu, "republicans are anti-poor" is moving the goalposts from the original claim, which was that no one should ever help the poor. Or what else would you consider "you are on your own" to mean? moron then tried to then pull the typical liberal talking point of "OMFG YOU HATE [insert people here] IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME".


^ and you don't consider "republicans say fuck the poor, they are completely on their own" as being a distortion of "gov't shouldn't have a huge welfare state"? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

3/30/2014 6:24:26 PM

I'm going to repost what I wrote earlier, since YOU were the one that actually twisted MY words:

Quote :

"the conservative notion that poverty is PREVENTABLE and that it's most poor people's FAULT they are poor. If only they didn't make poor choices: having kids out of wedlock, getting hooked on drugs/alcohol, not getting a higher education, being lazy, etc. If only poor people would work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Poor people are often born into poverty, which is a PUNISHMENT for the sloth/ignorance of their parents. It's a great thing that wealthy people are so generous, since they are far better sources of charity than the government. Couple that in with the fact that the rich are the best sources of job creation, and there is very little excuse for poverty. "

So let's break this down bit by bit without resorting to bullshit tactics of word twisting.

By large who is to blame for the poor? The individual and his/her choices? Or someone/something else? I'm really curious to know.

3/30/2014 7:08:41 PM

and I'm not talking about a complete diversion from the original topic, like I said before. btw, where did I twist your words?

If you'd like, I'll quote myself again:

Quote :

"Why am I going to respond to something that is, at best, barely tangentially related to the discussion? Going on a diatribe about what you say is a republican belief is a strawman, itself, and it doesn't address the fact that "fuck the poor, no one should ever help them, ever" is NOT a Reublican platform."

3/30/2014 7:19:04 PM

Quote :

"By large who is to blame for the poor? The individual and his/her choices? Or someone/something else?"

3/30/2014 8:09:27 PM

this page has saudi arabia, marijuana, crack, shariah, rape, jesus, and mcdonalds.

only thing it is missing is hitler.

3/30/2014 8:35:00 PM

Quote :

"By large who is to blame for the poor? The individual and his/her choices? Or someone/something else? I'm really curious to know."

One thing that often gets overlooked is that many people just aren't that fucking intelligent....

This isn't their fault as someone has to fill the bottom part of the intelligence bell curve. Though this also doesn't mean they should be able to live off government assistance their whole life...

3/30/2014 8:39:50 PM

Quote :

"Going on a diatribe about what you say is a republican belief is a strawman, itself, and it doesn't address the fact that "fuck the poor, no one should ever help them, ever" is NOT a Reublican platform.""

Um maybe because I NEVER FUCKING SAID ANY OF IT?

[Edited on March 30, 2014 at 9:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2014 9:18:26 PM

Quote :

"...no one should ever help the poor."

Burro, you insufferable twat. You keep insisting that others defend this, but this claim was entirely fabricated by YOU. The gist is that Republicans are anti-poor. Nobody said that Republicans think the poor should never be helped. You complain about strawmen, but you're arguing with one yourself.

3/30/2014 11:10:08 PM

a lot of people confuse sarcasm, hyperbole, and strawmen or interchange them. in reality, they mean very different things. well, at least they do to people who aren't total idiots.



[Edited on March 30, 2014 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2014 11:28:56 PM

So Republicans don't think the poverty is the fault of the poor, or that they don't need help, they just think __________________________________________________________.

Clears it all up.

3/31/2014 8:30:02 AM

Quote :

"The gist is that Republicans are anti-poor."

in the sense that republicans want to encourage the poor to work to bring themselves out of poverty, maybe.

3/31/2014 11:41:34 AM

Quote :

"If only they didn't make poor choices: having kids out of wedlock, getting hooked on drugs/alcohol, not getting a higher education, being lazy, etc. If only poor people would work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps! Poor people are often born into poverty, which is a PUNISHMENT for the sloth/ignorance of their parents"

So what again is the conservative argument against what I said?

3/31/2014 4:58:20 PM