KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,294
- 1,427
First....very VERY little tax dollars "pay for abortions". But here is a difference between not paying for abortions and banning abortions. After all these years, I did not realized that the REASON that it was important for a republican to appoint the next supreme court justice was so that they could say that it was unconstitutional for government money to pay for abortions. I thought it was to ban abortions. Thanks for clearing that up.The government using tax dollars to pay for abortions is not keeping the government out of one's personal life. Paying for the consequences of your choices out of your own pocket is what keeps government out of your personal life. My belief is tax dollars should not go toward negating personal consequences of behavior. If a woman chooses to have sex then she chooses the consequences of her actions. Period.
Here's what liberals criticize about Christians - they want the laws of our land to be based on Christian principles. I don't see Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, or Satanists pushing to have our laws based on THEIR beliefs...however I HAVE seen laws proposed by Christians that want to ban Sharia law (as if that's a real problem). Seems that they don't want laws based on a religion. How the irony of their stance escapes them amazes me.I don't see the left attacking Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Wiccan, Satanism, Taoism, or Hinduism. I never see the left criticize those religions.If you can't see the difference you need to look at what is going on in Germany. The government has committed treason against the citizens by allowing their culture to be decimated by Muslim "refugees". However the German government has little to fear from it's "well regulated" citizens. When it comes to protecting ones freedoms it is best to be on as even terms as possible.Then why does the left resist welfare reform that would eliminate some of these parasites?
According to the Social Security Administration website as of October we have 14,085,000 Americans under the age of 65 drawing Social Security, Disability, or both.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Our fifth most populated state (Illinois) as of July 1st 2015 was estimated to have only 12,859,995 people.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/17
Do you think it is appropriate to have more people on welfare and disability under the age of 65 than our fifth most populated state?You have a lot of rich white liberals talking about income inequality, white racism, and white privilege.... yeah no self hate there.
As I said...you ASSUME that liberals support abuse of the system. We tend to abhor the abusers as much as conservatives do. But...the right tends to want to abolish "entitlements", even when many families actually need them. We understand that some will abuse the system - many others don't. We don't want to leave them out in the cold. Compare this to the argument used against any gun regulations...say....if you have suffered clnical depression, you can't own a gun. The argument is that we CAN'T have such regulations because it might prevent a guy who went thru a divorce and was depressed from owning a gun....and we can't let that happen. m