Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Movement to normalize perversion continues >

Movement to normalize perversion continues

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Movement to normalize perversion continues

Old 07-15-2015, 04:26 AM
  #81  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

I don't remember saying that your position makes you a liberal (at least not in your quote of my post) so assume you're referring to someone else or you're making some kind of Freudian statement. I agree that the state should not be involved in funding abortions, advertising or "counseling" for them.

I was referring to previous posts made by others. "Liberal" is a simplistic catchall to label folks the "Right" disagrees with.

I think many citizens would prefer some kind of work be done for assistance money although it's not possible in every case. If your assertion that government work programs like CCC are socialism is taken at face value, then it would seem a lot of government jobs could arguably be listed under the same socialist description.



This I agree with. Many bureaucratic jobs are exactly that.

A national "work for assistance" program is absolutely possible, but if used to repair and reconstruct our crumbling infrastructure, for instance, it would eliminate many lucrative Government contracts for business. The same fate the "work programs" in prisons faced.

I don't know for a fact that a large extent or part of the lower class lives in ghettos but don't know that it's not true either.

Read carefully, my post does not say that. "Our biggest problems with the lower class demographic, resides to a large extent in the big city ghetto". Perhaps I could have stated this more clearly, but it is the "Problem" that emanates from the ghetto. Most of the violence stems from areas of intense concentration of the lower demographic classes.

As for a war on drugs failing miserably, that's one of those areas that are basically a catch-22 type situation.

I must disagree. The WOD has made illegal drugs unbelievably profitable for criminals. These profits are known to be used to fund the proliferation of a large percentage of criminal enterprises. It has also turned incarceration into a lucrative business opportunity, supported by taxation. The law Enforcement industry has reaped great bounty from confiscation of property many times unproven to be associated with drugs. There are politically powerful forces in this country that would lose a lot of money if drugs were legalized.

Many of these illegal drugs have their own specific issues and problems. Making them legal isn't going to eliminate crime and violence and really isn't in our society's best interests.

I know of no illegal activities that are consistent money LOSERS. Eliminate the profit, and you eliminate the problem.

Have you actually considered what you're saying? Seriously?? Because a child would be born into a poor family, they should be aborted.

Did not say that. I said if a person is forced to bring a child into an economically unsound circumstance, then the people forcing the issue bear responsibility for the economic well being of the child.

So people who oppose abortion should be responsible for children who parents decided not to abort and those children's parents should not be responsible for their own kids?

Irresponsible people are just that, IRRESPONSIBLE. Having a child will not automatically make them responsible, and as history has shown, punitive measures have not substantially relieved this condition either. Of course all parents should be Responsible, but as history shows, they are not.

My statement has to do with "force". People that force other people, by law, into an economically untenable situation, must bear responsibility for the aftermath. In this case we are talking about an innocent human being.


I believe the Chinese execute drug dealers, etc. Are you okay with that Chinese custom also?

Suits me to a "T". Provided of course the proper protocol to establish proof is followed.

The child's parents were grown up enough to conceive the child and should be responsible enough to care for their child.

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda. So if they were, we would not be having this discussion. We are not concerned here with "Responsible" people, they are not the problem.

If you're going to place the child's welfare on society as a burden instead of requiring its' parents to care for the child, then wouldn't your reasoning also require society to simply lock up the parents and prevent them from having any more children?

Lock them up? And pay $30000/year for their incarceration? I think not.

Requiring parents that petition for child welfare AFTER the first child, should have to agree to sterilization. This is a very easy procedure, agreed to and experienced by many "Responsible" people of all demographic classes. Those people unwilling to agree to this, should be denied assistance, and if they prove to be unable to properly care for their child, the child should be taken and become a ward of the state.

Having shown such irresponsibility, this person should then be sentenced to not conceive any more children. Persons that, after experiencing this, continue and conceive a third child, should be tried and if convicted of violating the courts sentence, then be forcibly sterilized. Just My Opinion.


Check with GOOGLE for Abortion statistics and other related info.
waddler is offline  
Old 07-15-2015, 05:36 PM
  #82  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,478
Default

I must admit, I didn't expect you to propose forced sterilization. I have mixed opinions on that. I still think it's wrong to force responsibility for children from irresponsible parents upon the rest of society. I'm not saying let children starve, etc. but your analysis below seems bleak, as in an all or nothing solution.

Originally Posted by waddler View Post
I don't remember saying that your position makes you a liberal (at least not in your quote of my post) so assume you're referring to someone else or you're making some kind of Freudian statement. I agree that the state should not be involved in funding abortions, advertising or "counseling" for them.

I was referring to previous posts made by others. "Liberal" is a simplistic catchall to label folks the "Right" disagrees with.

I think many citizens would prefer some kind of work be done for assistance money although it's not possible in every case. If your assertion that government work programs like CCC are socialism is taken at face value, then it would seem a lot of government jobs could arguably be listed under the same socialist description.



This I agree with. Many bureaucratic jobs are exactly that.

A national "work for assistance" program is absolutely possible, but if used to repair and reconstruct our crumbling infrastructure, for instance, it would eliminate many lucrative Government contracts for business. The same fate the "work programs" in prisons faced.

I don't know for a fact that a large extent or part of the lower class lives in ghettos but don't know that it's not true either.

Read carefully, my post does not say that. "Our biggest problems with the lower class demographic, resides to a large extent in the big city ghetto". Perhaps I could have stated this more clearly, but it is the "Problem" that emanates from the ghetto. Most of the violence stems from areas of intense concentration of the lower demographic classes.

As for a war on drugs failing miserably, that's one of those areas that are basically a catch-22 type situation.

I must disagree. The WOD has made illegal drugs unbelievably profitable for criminals. These profits are known to be used to fund the proliferation of a large percentage of criminal enterprises. It has also turned incarceration into a lucrative business opportunity, supported by taxation. The law Enforcement industry has reaped great bounty from confiscation of property many times unproven to be associated with drugs. There are politically powerful forces in this country that would lose a lot of money if drugs were legalized.

Many of these illegal drugs have their own specific issues and problems. Making them legal isn't going to eliminate crime and violence and really isn't in our society's best interests.

I know of no illegal activities that are consistent money LOSERS. Eliminate the profit, and you eliminate the problem.

Have you actually considered what you're saying? Seriously?? Because a child would be born into a poor family, they should be aborted.

Did not say that. I said if a person is forced to bring a child into an economically unsound circumstance, then the people forcing the issue bear responsibility for the economic well being of the child.

So people who oppose abortion should be responsible for children who parents decided not to abort and those children's parents should not be responsible for their own kids?

Irresponsible people are just that, IRRESPONSIBLE. Having a child will not automatically make them responsible, and as history has shown, punitive measures have not substantially relieved this condition either. Of course all parents should be Responsible, but as history shows, they are not.

My statement has to do with "force". People that force other people, by law, into an economically untenable situation, must bear responsibility for the aftermath. In this case we are talking about an innocent human being.


I believe the Chinese execute drug dealers, etc. Are you okay with that Chinese custom also?

Suits me to a "T". Provided of course the proper protocol to establish proof is followed.

The child's parents were grown up enough to conceive the child and should be responsible enough to care for their child.

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda. So if they were, we would not be having this discussion. We are not concerned here with "Responsible" people, they are not the problem.

If you're going to place the child's welfare on society as a burden instead of requiring its' parents to care for the child, then wouldn't your reasoning also require society to simply lock up the parents and prevent them from having any more children?

Lock them up? And pay $30000/year for their incarceration? I think not.

Requiring parents that petition for child welfare AFTER the first child, should have to agree to sterilization. This is a very easy procedure, agreed to and experienced by many "Responsible" people of all demographic classes. Those people unwilling to agree to this, should be denied assistance, and if they prove to be unable to properly care for their child, the child should be taken and become a ward of the state.

Having shown such irresponsibility, this person should then be sentenced to not conceive any more children. Persons that, after experiencing this, continue and conceive a third child, should be tried and if convicted of violating the courts sentence, then be forcibly sterilized. Just My Opinion.


Check with GOOGLE for Abortion statistics and other related info.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 04:32 AM
  #83  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by CalHunter View Post
I must admit, I didn't expect you to propose forced sterilization. I have mixed opinions on that. I still think it's wrong to force responsibility for children from irresponsible parents upon the rest of society. I'm not saying let children starve, etc. but your analysis below seems bleak, as in an all or nothing solution.
This is already a reality. Right , wrong or indifferent, we are paying for irresponsible peoples' actions. The original discussion was about morality and I got into trouble with some bizarre, hard to comprehend, hard to ignore questions and comparisons.

My statement or question was and is this. If thru morality, a Society eliminates abortion, and forces unwilling people to reproduce, does the Society incur a responsibility toward the offspring from such occurrence, greater than offspring of desirous parents? Given that in many instances the parents are already proven irresponsible, is it moral to sentence a forced offspring to endure further expected irresponsibility toward its well being and its environmental impact?

Secondly, if such an occurrence comes about, should not the "forcers" be obligated to be responsible for the consequences of their actions toward the unwanted child? Is not this child then, "their child" since they have thru their actions in essence adopted this child? Should not they provide for this child as "one of their own"? Is it IMMORAL to deny this child what it would be lawfully due had they in effect adopted it?

Is denying benefits to this child because of the actions of its biological parents, MORAL?

NEXT, forcing one culture's morality upon another culture is problematical. Usually the determining factor as to which culture is forced is a matter of MIGHT. Is "might making right" moral? Does a barbaric practice that is an anathema to one culture, give permission for interference by "might"? Is that custom, within that culture "moral"? If not, what makes it immoral?
waddler is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 05:03 AM
  #84  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

Originally Posted by waddler View Post
I will try to answer.

I understand personally about bootstrapping, and find nothing wrong with just providing opportunity. My only contention about abortion is that it is personal and the State should not be involved. I hardly see how that labels me a "Liberal", actually it was a "conservative" virtue in the Goldwater era, on up until the advent of the Reagan Admin., and the march of the Neo Cons. Enough of that.

Abortion is not just personal. It involves the killing of a human being. If your mother had aborted you, then you would not be here now. You would not have popped up somewhere else. You would be dead. And the unborn child is not a part of the mother's body. It is a totally separate entity which simply relies on the mother for shelter and sustenance while developing to the point where it can survive outside the mother's body, with further support of course.

Now as to the welfare funding, I prefer a working solution, where any man can be given a responsible job, even if it is a Government Work Program like the CCC was. But of course that is Socialism. Is it better to just give the money and encourage vagrancy? Our biggest problems with the lower class demographic, resides to a large extent in the big city ghetto. There, a person can make more money selling narcotics, primarily to middle and upper class suburbanites. The war on Drugs so highly touted by the Right, has failed as miserably as their Prohibition of Alcohol.

In order to respond to this, I had to acquire some knowledge about the Civilian Conservation Corps. It's not a very good model. It involved the employment of young, unmarried men, 17-28 in projects on government owned land.

A better model might be the WPA, which involved employment on public works like bridges, government buildings, etc. Resistance could be expected from private businesses and unions, since in this non-depression era, this would consist of government competition with private business. It could also get fairly expensive because there would be intense pressure from the "progressives" to pay a "living wage" which could be anywhere from $15 to $30 per hour. I would question whether people employed in this program would actually be doing useful work, since pressure to avoid government competition with private employment would be intense. There is also considerable evidence that industries managed by the government in the Soviet Union were quite inefficient.

I agree that we are not winning the "War on Drugs," but then, we have to ask the question; would the drug problem be worse if not for the "War on Drugs?" And according to my husband, who is in a position to know, the primary customers for illegal drugs are not middle and upper-class suburbanites, but the folks who live in the "hood." Securing our borders against illegal immigration might also serve to reduce the import of illegal drugs.

Ultimately, some of these problems can only be solved by a reintroduction of basic values into our society, I think.

My bone of contention with the far right, is that on one hand they want to increase our population by 400,000 or so/year. Most of these children will belong to economically challenged people. Note I did not say family, because in many instances there is not one. And after forcing the addition of children into these dire circumstances, They want to restrict or eliminate the funding to the programs that support these waifs.

What I would like to see is the elimination of a philosophy of government that provides for "Welfare Recipient" as a career choice. These "waifs" are a product of that philosophy. Of course, once again I am referring to values, a word which is considered an obscenity to most liberals. A family should not consist of a mother on public assistance with two or more children by different fathers. A family is not one man with eight children by five different women. Current Liberal Democrat philosophy encourages this, seemingly out of a morbid fear of imposing "values" on people.

Outlawing abortion is Government sticking its nose further into the personal lives of Americans, a place they should not be. However, if abortion is to be limited or outlawed, then the people responsible for bringing that about are responsible for the children that result from their actions.

Once again, you and I do not agree that abortion is a solution to our nation's problems. Abortion has been legal for a long time now and we still have an excess of poverty, crime, and a need for public assistance in certain segments of our society. Your promotion of abortion as some kind of solution is both meaningless and needless. Abortion is already legal and has been for a long time, whether I like it or not.

There is an old Chinese custom that says if you save a man's life you will be forever responsible for his actions. If these children are born and raised in the drug culture laden ghettos, then the responsibility for them becoming thugs and irresponsible citizens must be shared by those responsible for their existence.

The Chinese have many interesting practices. They have been limiting families to one child for a while now. The Chinese practice of aborting or killing girl babies has resulted in a severe shortage of girls for young men in China now. Be that as it may, are we really desirous of using China as a model for our society?

When a child is saved from abortion, the "saviors" have thru their actions assumed a special responsibility to see that child has an equal chance to the American Freedoms. Including a safe secure habitation, warm clean clothing,food , medicine, health care, and a high school education free from danger That takes TAXES, and these monies can only come from "them what's got", so quit complaining when your taxes go up to cover the Welfare needed to provide for your "foster" children.

I don't agree with your suggestions that abortion and welfare are the solutions to the results of the degradation of the family as the basis for human civilization. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. But I would point out once again, that abortion and public assistance programs have been around a long time, and these problems have only increased.


Liberalism/Libertarianism has failed

Time for a change
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 05:50 AM
  #85  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post

Liberalism/Libertarianism has failed

Time for a change
Abortion is not just personal. It involves the killing of a human being.

Only in the eyes of people that do not understand the definition of "human being", and those people are outside the Law with their opinion.

"I had to acquire some knowledge about the Civilian Conservation Corps. It's not a very good model."

A closer reading will find the CCC given as a Governmental Program, which it definitely was.

"Resistance could be expected from private businesses and unions, since in this non-depression era, this would consist of government competition with private business. It could also get fairly expensive because there would be intense pressure from the "progressives" to pay a "living wage" which could be anywhere from $15 to $30 per hour. I would question whether people employed in this program would actually be doing useful work, since pressure to avoid government competition with private employment would be intense. There is also considerable evidence that industries managed by the government in the Soviet Union were quite inefficient."

OK. Continue the "Give Away". The problem will not go away, it is only getting worse.

" the primary customers for illegal drugs are not middle and upper-class suburbanites, but the folks who live in the "hood."

Not according to the Drug lords in Chicago who divvy up the territory. According to them, the premium spot in the city is where the suburbanites deploy from the trains to go to work. It is a highly contested area, only a few blocks, and nowhere near the "hood". I will agree that most of the LE activity is in the "Hood", where the fodder for the judicial system is easy to come by and the defendants lack funds for defense.

"Of course, once again I am referring to values, a word which is considered an obscenity to most liberals."

I could say some really derogatory things about this inference and the lack of mentality it commands, but instead I will just say that "Pure Liberals" are difficult to find. and even harder to identify. Using it as a catchall for dislikes does not give validity to the specious remarks associated with the characterization. As rebuttal, we are at this moment discussing the lack of values in the beliefs of so called Conservatives.

"Your promotion of abortion as some kind of solution is both meaningless and needless. "

Returning again to mentality, analysis does not constitute advocation. A concept beyond the grasp of some.

"I don't agree with your suggestions that abortion and welfare are the solutions to the results of the degradation of the family as the basis for human civilization."


Do not substitute your desired interpretation, to support your Agenda, by misrepresenting my posting. If you want to express yourself, do it forthrightly. Refrain from perverting my postings to support your positions. Nowhere have I in any way suggested that
"abortion and welfare are the solutions to the results of the degradation of the family as the basis for human civilization".

It is not my responsibility nor am I able, to instill within another the ability to analytically discuss problematic issues.
waddler is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 06:16 AM
  #86  
Little Doe Peep
Thread Starter
 
sachiko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 14,945
Wink

Evidently waddler is unable to respond to my arguments but has to resort to extracting brief statements to which he can only respond with put-downs.

I am aware that the CCC was a government program, unique and not really appropriate. I suggested the WPA as a more realistic model for the work program you were proposing, but you were, apparently, unable to respond to my comments regarding the difficulties that would entail in our current environment.

I don't socialize with the drug lords in Chicago so I don't know what they think. But my husband is a criminal defense attorney who deals with many defendants brought up on drug charges. They tend to be residents of the "hood," although there are some middle and upper class suburbanites in the mix.

You are not just analyzing abortion, you are vehemently promoting it. But you didn't respond to my simple statement that, while abortion is completely legal, that hasn't seemed to solve any problems. So why are you ranting on and on about abortion?

The problems have grown, but it seems as though the only solution you liberal folks can propose is more government programs and more "Great Society."
sachiko is offline  
Old 07-16-2015, 10:40 AM
  #87  
Fork Horn
 
waddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Bogart Georgia/Hunter Arkansas
Posts: 360
Default

Originally Posted by sachiko View Post
Evidently waddler is unable to respond to my arguments

"you have no argument to respond to"

but has to resort to extracting brief statements to which he can only respond with put-downs.

I am aware that the CCC was a government program, unique and not really appropriate. I suggested the WPA as a more realistic model for the work program you were proposing, but you were, apparently, unable to respond to my comments regarding the difficulties that would entail in our current environment.

I alluded to the problems with a reference to the "Prison Enterprises" that were shut down at the behest of business. Obviously you are not able to comprehend the connections made. I proposed no program specifically, just that it be a "Government Program as CCC was a Government program". You are so frightened that your agenda dissolves, you are not paying attention.

I don't socialize with the drug lords in Chicago so I don't know what they think. But my husband is a criminal defense attorney who deals with many defendants brought up on drug charges.

Yep, he deals with those caught. He would be overjoyed to finally get a shot at a "Drug Lord", but they are insulated, so make a living off the peons.

They tend to be residents of the "hood," although there are some middle and upper class suburbanites in the mix.

You are not just analyzing abortion, you are vehemently promoting it.

Unsubstantiated opinion with no validation.


But you didn't respond to my simple statement that, while abortion is completely legal, that hasn't seemed to solve any problems. So why are you ranting on and on about abortion?

Abortion is simply a vehicle for the principle.

The problems have grown, but it seems as though the only solution you liberal folks can propose is more government programs and more "Great Society."
You are one lost puppy if you believe what you just posted. Now justify your allegations.
waddler is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.