Hawt No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

plot said:
not sure why people would oppose this. also not sure what disillusioned world people live in that think people on public assistance are somehow using the money to get treatment. if they fail the test, this mysterious treatment opponents think all drug users are going through obviously isn't working...

all these systems have serious flaws, and nobody ever wants to try something different or more radical... they just want to keep the status quo and not rock the boat while our resources are slowly drained...

oh but liam thinks if we don't feed the addictions their children will starve and they'll go on a mass crime spree robbing liquor stores and pharmacies. more than likely they'll just move to your state.
Click to expand...

The people who wrote that bill and the people who are supporting it don't understand addiction very well. It's nearly impossible to use those kinds of incentives to ween someone off a drug habit. Liam will rob a store before his family starves. Many addicts would too I'm sure. But I'm willing to bet that they'll rob that store to cover their addiction first.

When I was volunteering at Institute of Human Services, they had a policy where they won't house people who are actively using drugs. That's fine policy I guess, although it does nothing to help the people who are addicted. I noticed that the addicts we turned away would rather starve and sleep in the streets than quit and receive IHS shelter and food. That's insane, but that's how addictions work.
 
annastayzia said:
It's not "meaningless" but rather accurate. Not to go off-topic; but that's one of the things in the big gay marriage debate. What happens when gay couples who get married in one state move to another. Are they still married or not?
Click to expand...

they should be and it's not an issue of states rights because it's been established that marriage is a right and equal protection under the laws is constitutionally mandated
 
SemperFly said:
they should be and it's not an issue of states rights because it's been established that marriage is a right and equal protection under the laws is constitutionally mandated
Click to expand...

In the DOMA, it says that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, if such marriages are not legal in their state.
 
annastayzia said:
In the DOMA, it says that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, if such marriages are not legal in their state.
Click to expand...

It's not just gay marriages, but all types of unions. The states have the individual freedom to set up how they define relationships. For instance Ohio does not recognize any form of civil union, hetero or not, but RI and soon Hawaii does. DOMA just reaffirmed that right of the states as well as clarifying the position the federal government has with same-sex relationships with regard to federal services.
 
annastayzia said:
The thing is when the "Framers" were alive people tended to stay in one place. There weren't cars or airplanes to travel from state-to-state. Plus you couldn't instantly communicate with people in different places via telephone or internet.

EDIT: The post was in response to Fly's. I forgot to quote it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that's relevant. I don't see a single thing wrong with vastly different laws in States. In fact, the smaller areas of government would likely make this country more nimble - something our current government lacks. And that nimbleness could save the US from many disasters...
 
dbzeag said:
It's not just gay marriages, but all types of unions. The states have the individual freedom to set up how they define relationships. For instance Ohio does not recognize any form of civil union, hetero or not, but RI and soon Hawaii does. DOMA just reaffirmed that right of the states as well as clarifying the position the federal government has with same-sex relationships with regard to federal services.
Click to expand...

And that's fine.
 
If you don't like a current states laws, then move to another one, no one is stopping you. That's the best thing about giving state's more power.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 1 person
kiwi said:
If you don't like a current states laws, then move to another one, no one is stopping you. That's the best thing about giving state's more power.
Click to expand...

Well, I plan on leaving the country this year, but that's beside the point, because my post was not about me, but people as a whole. My point was in today's society people are on the move a lot more than they once were.

Personally, I am for a strong central government - I believe that history has shown that states do not adequately recognize and protect the equal rights of ALL of its citizens as well as the national government does. Of course the national government has not been perfect in this regard (Dred scott anyone?) but time and time again states have proven to be worse in this area.

Quote from Thomas Jefferson;
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
 
annastayzia said:
In the DOMA, it says that states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, if such marriages are not legal in their state.
Click to expand...

yes I understand that. DOMA should have been ruled unconstitutional years ago. states have rights up until the point they infringe on the rights of individuals and their infringement upon what has been deemed a right by scotus as well as their denial of equal protection under the law is a solid violation of the 14th
 
Last edited:
SemperFly said:
so that someone else's family could starve? what if the clerk refused to give you the money; would you kill for it?

just because you would doesn't mean others would. plenty would beg instead.

but if an individual is in such a position that they can't even feed their child then that individual has no business having custody of that child.
Click to expand...

You're god damn right I would kill anyone before someone in my family died from starvation.
 
Harold of the Rocks said:
Honestly I do not believe there are enough jobs in this country for everyone to be hired simultaneously..
Click to expand...

After being in India for a while, yes there are plenty of jobs. In a hotel I went to, there is one person that grabs towels, one person grabbed soap, one changed sheets, one was a porter for teh bags, one was a host, one flagged cars/taxis, one at the desk, etc. There were plenty of positions. As more people work and get more money, more jobs will be required to support them.
 
dbzeag said:
After being in India for a while, yes there are plenty of jobs. In a hotel I went to, there is one person that grabs towels, one person grabbed soap, one changed sheets, one was a porter for teh bags, one was a host, one flagged cars/taxis, one at the desk, etc. There were plenty of positions. As more people work and get more money, more jobs will be required to support them.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about is theory. Sure we could all theorize a way for everyone to be simultaneously employed, but it happening in reality is a whole different thing.
 
plot said:
the business of government is business. not charity.
Click to expand...

fly said:
You might want to check again. Pretty sure its charity.
Click to expand...

The business of the federal government is neither business (Hamilton) nor charity (progressives). The business of the federal government is provide for the common defense, security of our national borders, foreign relationships, and very limited regulation of interstate commerce. Not bogus regulation of interstate commerce such as a farmer growing for himself counting as interstate commerce. :mad::rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back