ObamaCare

[jj3044]

ummmmmmm, unemployment and medicare?

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?

I have no idea what you are talking about

The thesis of your main point is basically that if you don't use it, you don't want to have to pay for it. My point is that if you are complaining about paying for some programs that you don't/won't use, then you have to complain about EVERY program, including ones like unemployment and Medicare.

we're talking about the picture right? The point of the picture is the hypocrisy of those who say "keep your government out of my uterus" but then demand government intervention into their birth control and contraceptive use and abortions.

No, I'm talking about your main point:

pretty sure you have completely forgotten to factor in the entire premise......FORCING someone else to pay for your contraception or abortion, to be specific.

It's about how tax dollars are spent, it has nothing to do with your privacy.

And back to my point... I may never use unemployment, so why should I pay?

Get it?

[Phatscotty]

Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

[Iliad]

Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.


Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.



This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

[Night Strike]

Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.


Scotty, you'll never go to school again. Yet, you as a taxpayer are forced to fund the education of other children. Don't see you frothing at the mouth about that program. Or literally every other program, just because you don't agree to a war doesn't mean you can just deduct that from your tax. Programs doesn't have to directly affect you for it to be beneficial, and that's such a selfish, blinkered and narrow minded perspective.As Medefe and other repeatedly pointed out increasing the access to contraceptives is beneficial and cost-saving to the entire community.



This is as much about Victorian prudishness and attitude to sex as it is about perceived government spending.

So why, in 2012, are women suddenly unable to pay for their own contraceptives when they've been buying them for themselves for the nearly 100 years they've been around? Why must people buy their own contraceptives AND buy for others who refuse to buy their own?

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

[Metsfanmax]

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

[Night Strike]

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

[Phatscotty]

Nope. I didn't say that because I don't use birth control...

Put simply, taxpayer dollars should not go to fund abortions or contraceptives

You still didn't get it. Please try and actually engage the other side.

I don't get my own point?

GET A CLUE!

[Symmetry]

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

[Night Strike]

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

[Symmetry]

By the way, national defense is actually a Constitutionally-defined role of the federal government. Where is providing/mandating contraceptives a Constitutionally-defined role?

That would be a valid response if invading Afghanistan could in any rational way be interpreted as providing for the "national defense."

Considering the group that attacked us on 9-11 was not actually a national army, does that mean we weren't allowed to retaliate for those attacks? If a non-governmental entity attacks a country, that country is not able to do anything because the entity is not a country that can be retaliated upon? The US should have just set idol for the past 11 years and let Al-Qaeda attack us as much as they desired since they weren't part of a nation to stop?

What's a non-governmental entity, NS?

Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

[Night Strike]

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

[Symmetry]

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

I think you might have have found them re-reading your comments, as you've removed them from this reply.

Are you ok with me quoting them?

[Night Strike]

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

I think you might have have found them re-reading your comments, as you've removed them from this reply.

Are you ok with me quoting them?

What are you talking about? I removed quotes because you can only embed a certain number of quotes within each other and we were at or near that limit. Would you just spit out what you're wanting to say?

[Symmetry]

A non-governmental entity is Al-Qaeda? I think you may have a few problems in your thinking there, from a number of directions.

Then enlighten me.

I think you might have have found them re-reading your comments, as you've removed them from this reply.

Are you ok with me quoting them?

What are you talking about? I removed quotes because you can only embed a certain number of quotes within each other and we were at or near that limit. Would you just spit out what you're wanting to say?

"at or near" that limit?

We gonna have to embed to the limit before you make sense?

But anyway, you were being very very silly and suggesting that an attack by a non-governmental entity, let's say, Al-Qaida, or Blackwater, justifies retaliation in any form.

[Metsfanmax]

Al-Qaeda. A group that does not act under the direct authority of a national government. This is opposed to if a military had attacked.

I have some qualms with the way our drone program has operated, but if there were better oversight and they were used with more restraint, this could be a great tool for fighting terrorism. We wouldn't need to completely invade a country and topple its government as a means of getting at a small terrorist organization.