ernest_t_bass;1709440 wrote:I'm just giving you shit, old man.
sleeper;1836626 wrote:Planned Parenthood and the ACLU need help.
If all who participated in the women's march kicked in a little over $100 to Planned Parenthood instead of several hundred or more to go to D.C. to march, they would fully fund the organization. Of course, it's not a success in their eyes unless money is extracted through government coercion.sleeper;1836626 wrote:Planned Parenthood and the ACLU need help.
Agreed. It's not enough to be free to voluntarily fund causes you believe are worthwhile. You must force others to fund causes you believe are worthwhile at gunpoint.queencitybuckeye;1837007 wrote:If all who participated in the women's march kicked in a little over $100 to Planned Parenthood instead of several hundred or more to go to D.C. to march, they would fully fund the organization. Of course, it's not a success in their eyes unless money is extracted through government coercion.
queencitybuckeye;1837007 wrote:If all who participated in the women's march kicked in a little over $100 to Planned Parenthood instead of several hundred or more to go to D.C. to march, they would fully fund the organization. Of course, it's not a success in their eyes unless money is extracted through government coercion.
Agreed. If Republicans want a bigger military, they can voluntarily pay for it with their own money.justincredible;1837010 wrote:Agreed. It's not enough to be free to voluntarily fund causes you believe are worthwhile. You must force others to fund causes you believe are worthwhile at gunpoint.
The government appears to come down on private paramilitary militias.sleeper;1837019 wrote:Agreed. If Republicans want a bigger military, they can voluntarily pay for it with their own money.
I doubt you'll get much push back from Justin on that. For the record, I agree with you.sleeper;1837019 wrote:Agreed. If Republicans want a bigger military, they can voluntarily pay for it with their own money.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to justincredible again.justincredible;1837097 wrote:I'll ignore the silly attempt to equate national defense with private charitable organizations and agree with you that our military is far too big as it is and needs no additional funding. It could handle substantial cuts and still be the strongest in the world (which it should be) if we would focus more on defense and less on regime change and nation building.
Yes but we need to focus on CUTTING services that provide low-income women healthcare. That should be our focus, not the billions of dollars we waste each year on the military.justincredible;1837097 wrote:I'll ignore the silly attempt to equate national defense with private charitable organizations and agree with you that our military is far too big as it is and needs no additional funding. It could handle substantial cuts and still be the strongest in the world (which it should be) if we would focus more on defense and less on regime change and nation building.
And of course, we can only focus on cutting one thing at a time, right? With the workforce currently in the federal employ, we can't possibly consider cuts in multiple areas at once, can we?sleeper;1837108 wrote:Yes but we need to focus on CUTTING services that provide low-income women healthcare. That should be our focus, not the billions of dollars we waste each year on the military.
Yeah, a better example would be that if Trump wanted his wife and kid to be living in New York instead of the White House, he could be paying for it himself instead of making NYC foot the bill.justincredible;1837097 wrote:I'll ignore the silly attempt to equate national defense with private charitable organizations and agree with you that our military is far too big as it is and needs no additional funding. It could handle substantial cuts and still be the strongest in the world (which it should be) if we would focus more on defense and less on regime change and nation building.
Planned parenthood gets such a small % of the federal budget to provide healthcare for low income women. If you cut .05% of the defense budget for 1 year you could pay for 500 years of medical care via Planned Parenthood.O-Trap;1837217 wrote:And of course, we can only focus on cutting one thing at a time, right? With the workforce currently in the federal employ, we can't possibly consider cuts in multiple areas at once, can we?
I'd be absolutely on board with making him pay for his own such preferences, when there have been provisions available for them to live with him.Heretic;1837220 wrote:Yeah, a better example would be that if Trump wanted his wife and kid to be living in New York instead of the White House, he could be paying for it himself instead of making NYC foot the bill.
Once again, you're confusing "could" with "should."sleeper;1837223 wrote:Planned parenthood gets such a small % of the federal budget to provide healthcare for low income women. If you cut .05% of the defense budget for 1 year you could pay for 500 years of medical care via Planned Parenthood.
This is purely political. Republicans don't care about the health of women.
Simply a matter of priorities.O-Trap;1837245 wrote:To suggest that it's small does nothing to support the notion that it's warranted.
You're using a flaw to justify another flaw. Paying for something with public monies and justifying it by saying it prevents having to pay for something more expensive with public monies isn't a sound defense.sleeper;1837246 wrote:Simply a matter of priorities.
I prefer to prioritize items that will actually have an impact on the budget deficits rather than a rounding error of 1% of that prioritized item.
Penny wise, pound foolish.
You're right. We should focus on .0000000000001% of the budget to reduce deficits rather than 25% of the budget. We only need to find 1M planned parenthoods to cut in order to cut 1% of the defense budget.O-Trap;1837250 wrote:You're using a flaw to justify another flaw. Paying for something with public monies and justifying it by saying it prevents having to pay for something more expensive with public monies isn't a sound defense.
sleeper;1837223 wrote:Planned parenthood gets such a small % of the federal budget to provide healthcare for low income women. If you cut .05% of the defense budget for 1 year you could pay for 500 years of medical care via Planned Parenthood.
This is purely political. Republicans don't care about the health of women.
Yeah want the government out of the way but want the government to tell women what to do with their bodies and where people should use the restroom.QuakerOats;1837260 wrote:Good troll, but I think your left outrigger line is tangled.
Most reasonable people like the idea of getting government out of the way so that economic growth can occur creating opportunities for all, allowing all people the wherewithall to handle their own health affairs. Nearly all women want to be independent of government in providing for their own healthcare.
Of course; you know all that.
Cry more please.SportsAndLady;1837261 wrote:Again, not sure why anyone responds to sleeper. Guy is an annoying troll who's trying to prove his point (even though it's already been proven) that QO and some others were essentially doing that for the last 8 years just against obama/dem's
Hopefully sleeper comes back to his actual, real thoughts as they were always pretty good. Now, he's just an annoying troll that has me looking less and less at the poli forum.
Not crying. You've been proven a troll and it drives people away. But keep on commenting on how to improve this site!sleeper;1837269 wrote:Cry more please.
SportsAndLady;1837284 wrote:Not crying. You've been proven a troll and it drives people away. But keep on commenting on how to improve this site!