formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 17:28:35 GMT -5
[/size] I'm not a prude by any stretch of the imagination but kindergarten, really?? ABC's, numbers, finger painting then sex ed? We started in 5th grade and had health class in each year of middle school where we would go over the subject as well. I think the biggest mistake is that they really only focused from a facts perspective [i.e. cock & balls - all hail Adam Sandler , vagina & boobies, sperm & ovaries] but never from the realities of sex, including appropriate protection. I think the "health" classes we had from 5th through 8th grades were okay but the realities of sex and protections should be discussed / taught in high school, starting in 9th grade since that is most likely the time when they will explore. That's my opinion at least.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 17:32:08 GMT -5
Agreed, expat.. and when I say kindergarten I'm not talking the explicit stuff, but hell.. I started talking to my kids about being careful about their decisions in preschool. It definitely needs to start by 4th or 5th though.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 17:33:09 GMT -5
the basics in kindergarten, sure. think of it like this - if a child is taught to understand how the body functions at an early age, he or she will be a lot more likely to think about the ramifications of their actions upon their own bodies. I think we'd have a lot less "I'm invincible!" type attitudes about unplanned pregnancies than we do now.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jan 22, 2011 17:38:34 GMT -5
[/size] I'm pro choice but nice try to open up into a rant that is not factually correct. Most planned parenthoods have free birth control - pills & condoms as well as free STD testing and some with free abortions. There are plenty of free and low cost clinics in areas of high poverty that are privately owned and managed without government intervention. The government cannot successfully deliver large mass medical care to a population. In any country. Like every other aspect in life, the politicians always over promise and under deliver because the revenues are much lower than the expenses [ahem - pensions, social security & Medicare] It would be kind of like your husband promising you a half million dollar home and new Merceded Benz on a $50k salary. Amazingly, some people understand their own finances so well but are completely ignorant when it comes to systems of mass scale. It's always - get the rich to pay for it, personal responsibility - pshaw.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 17:44:34 GMT -5
traelin, if I thought anything you had to say already was sufficient enough to back up your viewpoint, do you really think I'd still be posting in here? Yes, if you don't understand basic economics. There is no getting around the facts I addressed in the beginning of the thread. Not that this country hasn't been living in perpetual denial for a few decades, but the chicken is coming home to roost as we speak.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 17:46:18 GMT -5
Op said primary care.. I said readily available/free birth control - Readily available it is not.
There are an average of 17 planned parenthoods per state (850 total) to serve 63 million women.
That's really just not going to cut it.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 17:46:31 GMT -5
All govts. which control the means of production end, and usually within one human lifespan. Many of them eliminated their future producers in a more overt form of abortion, but the results are the same. Rome ended. The system was perpetuated by others. It would be preferable to say that all "enlightened" societies fail; they are overcome by those who do not have the time to waste pontificating the finer points of murdering ones own peoples and justifying/popularizing all forms of debauchery. Moral decline is the root of most other abuses, (economic/monetary included). The Muslims will be our natural replacements should things continue to progress unchanged. That is not to say that the Muslim worldview is morally superior; this need not be the case. All govts. end, sanity. Such is the progression of human institutions, which are as imperfect as their creators. I am talking about those govts. which control the means of production from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 17:48:31 GMT -5
I think traelin's rationale is that we should round up all women and put them into a breeding farm so that capitalism can continue functioning perfectly. Actually no. I just require that people pay the price for their stupid decisions. But you have made it abundantly clear in the past that you support coddling people from cradle to grave in the past. It's probably the only way he could get some anyway.
Personal attacks are against the CoC. Consider this your first and last warning.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 17:51:27 GMT -5
Its all about personal freedom... did you watch my link to the author of Atlas Shrugged talking about her stand on freedom of choice... I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time when i was 16... as i've said before... nice fairy tale... very little reality... but the fact that you would refer people to Rand in an anti-abortion thread is hysterical... Here's a quote for you too.. "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." Ayn Rand If it's all about personal freedom, why are you in favor of using the govt. by force of imprisonment and/or wealth confiscation to pay for those who don't have healthcare?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 17:56:15 GMT -5
I think traelin's rationale is that we should round up all women and put them into a breeding farm so that capitalism can continue functioning perfectly. Actually no. I just require that people pay the price for their stupid decisions. But you have made it abundantly clear in the past that you support coddling people from cradle to grave in the past. It's probably the only way he could get some anyway.
Personal attacks are against the CoC. Consider this your first warning. Actually, I have never supported coddling. That's mostly just extreme POV coloring my opinions. I'll consider myself warned If it's all about personal freedom, why are you in favor of using the govt. by force of imprisonment and/or wealth confiscation to pay for those who don't have healthcare? Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=post&thread=2099"e=79156&page=7#ixzz1Bo8Bdui1
Hey, you have the choice/freedom to not pay. You'll just have to deal with the consequences. Just like women who choose to have an abortion have to deal with the emotional shit storm it opens up.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 17:57:54 GMT -5
Hey, you have the choice/freedom to not pay. You'll just have to deal with the consequences. Just like women who choose to have an abortion have to deal with the emotional shit storm it opens up. In other words, you don't support freedom because you support the govt.'s draconian response to me exercising my freedom. Such logic leaves me stunned as to why your home state is on the brink of collapse. LOL And as for women having to deal with the emotional crapstorm. Perhaps they should have thought about that before making the consensual decision to partake in potentially reproductive activities, in the majority of instances.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:02:13 GMT -5
Op said primary care.. I said readily available/free birth control - Readily available it is not. There are an average of 17 planned parenthoods per state (850 total) to serve 63 million women. That's really just not going to cut it. The federal govt. has no business in education. If you want to teach your kids "whatever" regarding the birds and bees, then that is up to you.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 18:02:37 GMT -5
Hey, you have the choice/freedom to not pay. You'll just have to deal with the consequences. Just like women who choose to have an abortion have to deal with the emotional shit storm it opens up. In other words, you don't support freedom because you support the govt.'s draconian response to me exercising my freedom. Such logic leaves me stunned as to why your home state is on the brink of collapse. LOL No, I totally support your freedom. You can also move. That would be another choice. Personally, what this comes down to is you don't support the American system of government, you support some libertarian wet dream system of government - which has never existed in the US so I'm not exactly sure what your problem is. America has had systems of taxation since the beginning. Think of health care payments as a tax and it won't be so hard on your brain. Don't pay taxes, go to prison. Don't do things in the name of "freedom" that deprive others of their freedom/human rights (kinda like murder... do you have a problem with their being a law against murder? After all - there is a draconian system of punishment for you just exercising your freedom to shoot guns at people).
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 18:03:55 GMT -5
Op said primary care.. I said readily available/free birth control - Readily available it is not. There are an average of 17 planned parenthoods per state (850 total) to serve 63 million women. That's really just not going to cut it. The federal govt. has no business in education. If you want to teach your kids "whatever" regarding the birds and bees, then that is up to you. Oh right, you believe the government should stay out of everything but.... wait... do you even believe a government should exist? 'Cause as far as I can tell, you really don't.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 0:03:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 18:05:57 GMT -5
"you support the govt.'s draconian response to me exercising my freedom"
To what were you referring?
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:08:40 GMT -5
No, I totally support your freedom. You can also move. That would be another choice. This country was founded on the principles of federalism. If I don't like what a particular sovereign state is doing, then yes, I can move. But the Constitution specifically stipulates the enumerated powers of the federal govt., which was created by the sovereign states to protect and uphold their and our rights. People are not going to move because liberals don't read the Constitution. Personally, what this comes down to is you don't support the American system of government, you support some libertarian wet dream system of government - which has never existed in the US so I'm not exactly sure what your problem is.Actually, the Founders were libertarian and so is the Constitution. Federalist 41 defined the general welfare clause. You all just want to make up your own definitions of it. America has had systems of taxation since the beginning. Think of health care payments as a tax and it won't be so hard on your brain. Don't pay taxes, go to prison.This is grossly inaccurate and an over-generalization. Point to me anywhere in our nation's history prior to 1913 where we had a federal income tax system, or federal taxes on things not enumerated in the confines of the Constitution. Don't do things in the name of "freedom" that deprive others of their freedom/human rights (kinda like murder... do you have a problem with their being a law against murder? After all - there is a draconian system of punishment for you just exercising your freedom to shoot guns at people).You are infringing upon my economic freedoms by threatening imprisonment for not paying taxes on unconstutional programs. You are further infringing upon my children's economic freedoms by taking from my ability to provide for them. Again, I ask, are you really surprised your state is a fiscal nightmare? I suppose the federal govt. (that is, me) should bail you all's problems out?
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Jan 22, 2011 18:09:32 GMT -5
Fact: Most of them would have been taxpayers.
From way back on the first page. This is probably correct but what constitutes "most"? You know that it takes quite a few taxpayers to support one slug right? This is talking about a country like the US. What about miserable hellholes like Africa? How many more people do they need there? Actually what they need is a reduction in population, not an increase. So anything short of mass genocide to facilitate that should be left on the table.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:11:31 GMT -5
"you support the govt.'s draconian response to me exercising my freedom" To what were you referring? Obamacare.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 18:12:03 GMT -5
California sends most of its money to other states... would it be so wrong of us to ask for a little back? PS - It doesn't matter what the federalist papers said, they're not the constitution. The constitution can also be amended - hence why we have income taxes! *GASP* I know, shocking that they wrote that in there.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:12:13 GMT -5
Oh right, you believe the government should stay out of everything but.... wait... do you even believe a government should exist? 'Cause as far as I can tell, you really don't. The federal govt. should obey its own rule of law. No more, no less. It's really a very simple idea.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:13:33 GMT -5
California sends most of its money to other states... would it be so wrong of us to ask for a little back? PS - It doesn't matter what the federalist papers said, they're not the constitution. The constitution can also be amended - hence why we have income taxes! *GASP* I know, shocking that they wrote that in there. And the Constitution can also be amended to provide everything you want but refuse to use the Amendment process for. And news flash, the country was not founded in 1913. California sends out more money for programs many other states don't want. Many states would be more than happy if California were to stop exporting its nutty ideas AND taxes.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 18:20:49 GMT -5
Hey, don't look at me.. I'd happily secede from the Union and keep all our federal tax dollars here. By the way, Mr. "I like to be nitpicky about what other people say I said" - I said SOME SYSTEM OF TAXATION. We've always had one. It doesn't really matter that that system of taxation was not a tax on everyone (although, when you tax goods in the form of tariffs, that actually taxes almost everyone). Just because it wasn't a direct tax, doesn't mean it wasn't there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 0:03:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 18:20:58 GMT -5
No.. up until recently (not sure last two years) ... California has historically paid out much more in federal taxes, than it received in federal support... that's what i think Loop is referring too...
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:24:16 GMT -5
Hey, don't look at me.. I'd happily secede from the Union and keep all our federal tax dollars here. By the way, Mr. "I like to be nitpicky about what other people say I said" - I said SOME SYSTEM OF TAXATION. We've always had one. It doesn't really matter that that system of taxation was not a tax on everyone (although, when you tax goods in the form of tariffs, that actually taxes almost everyone). Just because it wasn't a direct tax, doesn't mean it wasn't there. The rest of these United States, for the most part, would love California to secede. My solution would be to give it to China and call our debts even. California wants it all but as is evidenced by the states' inevitable muni issues, socialism works until you run out of other people's money. And when you said some system of taxation, it is ambiguous in this discussion. States can do just about whatever they want, provided they live within the confines of Article I, Section 10. So we are not discussing state taxes, we are discussing federal taxes. So your hypothesis would be grossly inaccurate as I stipulated.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:25:07 GMT -5
No.. up until recently (not sure last two years) ... California has historically paid out much more in federal taxes, than it received in federal support... that's what i think Loop is referring too... She's 100% right, but she is also overlooking the fact that most states don't support the programs that California supports and is paying for on a federal level. That is the real issue. If California really cared about its tax outflows, it'd support the termination of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is most of the reason this nation is bleeding red ink. (Wars too, but that isn't relevant to this topic.)
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Jan 22, 2011 18:25:12 GMT -5
No.. up until recently (not sure last two years) ... California has historically paid out much more in federal taxes, than it received in federal support... that's what i think Loop is referring too... Oh he knows.. he's saying that those federal tax dollars that they receive pay for stuff they don't want Like.. social security, medicare, etc.
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:28:03 GMT -5
No.. up until recently (not sure last two years) ... California has historically paid out much more in federal taxes, than it received in federal support... that's what i think Loop is referring too... Oh he knows.. he's saying that those federal tax dollars that they receive pay for stuff they don't want Like.. social security, medicare, etc. Yes, as I said you are 100% correct, but also overlooking that most states are sick of the programs bleeding us dry to begin with. There are 26 states fighting Obamacare for instance. That speaks volumes in and of itself, especially when some of the states are historically liberal.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,639
|
Post by chiver78 on Jan 22, 2011 18:30:09 GMT -5
And as for women having to deal with the emotional crapstorm. Perhaps they should have thought about that before making the consensual decision to partake in potentially reproductive activities, in the majority of instances. and the partner gets to walk away unscathed. if you honestly think that a woman who makes any decision regarding a pregnancy - wanted or otherwise - makes it lightly, I suggest you read this book about girls that were forced to give up their children for adoption in the years before Roe v. Wade. nothing regarding these decisions is easy, including the decision to terminate. many of the subjects in the book would have chosen to terminate had the option been available to them at the time. perhaps those who will never find themselves in a position to have to make a decision like this should leave the decision-making to the women who are absolutely affected by it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 0:03:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2011 18:31:43 GMT -5
Gottcha! I was skimming... now i see...
|
|
|
Post by traelin0 on Jan 22, 2011 18:34:20 GMT -5
And as for women having to deal with the emotional crapstorm. Perhaps they should have thought about that before making the consensual decision to partake in potentially reproductive activities, in the majority of instances. and the partner gets to walk away unscathed. if you honestly think that a woman who makes any decision regarding a pregnancy - wanted or otherwise - makes it lightly, I suggest you read this book about girls that were forced to give up their children for adoption in the years before Roe v. Wade. nothing regarding these decisions is easy, including the decision to terminate. many of the subjects in the book would have chosen to terminate had the option been available to them at the time. perhaps those who will never find themselves in a position to have to make a decision like this should leave the decision-making to the women who are absolutely affected by it. Nowhere have I ever stated the other partner in the consummation should get off without penalty. I think it's atrocious that men think they can do whatever they want without consequences. Economically speaking, it's a good thing those people didn't terminate. We'd have even less people paying into SS than we do now. Look, if you want socialism, you have to pay for it. It is as simple as that. But even then you run the risk of crossing the Rubicon, as is evidenced by the current state of our unfunded liabilities today. SS cannot exist without enough people paying into it. Sure, we can gimmick it by raising the retirement age, which results in kicking the can down the road. We can raise taxes on the already existent producers, but then you will increase capital outflows. We can gimmick it with a chain-weighted CPI (they are discussing using the C-CPI-U as the new metric), but then a month's SS check will buy you a roll of Charmin. There is no free lunch. The sooner all people of all political persuasions come to these self-evident truths, the sooner we can take the short-term pain pill for the long-term gain. As for me personally, my investment portfolio demonstrates that I am long on the populace's denial. I will not invest somewhere that hasn't come to the same conclusions as the rest of the world.
|
|