Fudge_Brownie Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 That's fine Justin until you turn around and ask the government to fund your right to do certain things to your body using the taxes of those who disagree with those actions. It's not quite so simple. I disagree with all kinds of shit my taxes go towards. But I also understand it isn't just my country (or a country full of people like me). If 70% of the population wanted "free" tattoos for life, I'd argue like hell against it, I'd be pissed as fuck that the population wanted that, but if they voted it in, I'm not going to pull some shit like a revote attempt. I think you're speaking along the lines of certain healthcare coverage in a socialized healthcare system? If so, A, do you have a healthcare provider right now that matches your religious preferences? B, how is that any different than paying some person to cut your lawn, who then uses the money for the same purpose? You're trying to regulate what other people can do to themselves. He contributed to this hypothetical system just as much as you did, so he has equal right to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 i know know married couples that have never had a child, should they pay taxes that go for schooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Is Justin on birth control? Maybe that's what has brought us the new more reasonable Justin - who knows. how does taking away the right to a female medical procedure affect your taxes? i know different people that have had them, they just paid the bill, it wasn't paid for by any govt AGENCY. They weren't on GOVT assistance, no FOOD stamps etc. And I wasn't saying take a way a female or male medical procedure. What I was saying was people have various beliefs and it's not abnormal for them to upset with how their taxes are spent if the government is asked to fund those procdeures. He contributed to this hypothetical system just as much as you did, so he has equal right to it. Did he really? There's a percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes period. In fact they get money back. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to assistance to help him become self reliant (because I believe firmly in that and have worked very hard in that fashion to support several local families), but I don't believe in perpetuating a lifestyle. Hell, I should support abortions for the poor because then there would be fewer mouths to feed and fewer kids growing up in welfare situations. But I personally look upon it as a question of personal responsibility and the belief that life starts at some point post conception. So you feel free to be sexually free but I think it's important to acknowledge that you are destroying life if you choose to have an abortion because you got pregnant from fooling around. Abortion for medical issues, absolutely. Abortion for convenience - which the bulk of them are if you study the research - then you're abdicating your personal responsibility. i know know married couples that have never had a child, should they pay taxes that go for schooling? You know what Mike, I hear these same people every year when the annual budget process starts for our school district. In my State they're benefiting other ways they refuse to acknowledge. The value of their homes are directly tied to the competency of the school district within which their homes are located. So when they live in a top 10 school district, as they do, their homes are worth significantly more than those in the district next door. It's a screwed up way to operate school funding but that is the reality of our existing approach and if they want to pay lower taxes they should move to a less competent school district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilled man Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 That's fine Justin until you turn around and ask the government to fund your right to do certain things to your body using the taxes of those who disagree with those actions. It's not quite so simple. I pay for my own health insurance , what would the goverment fund me at all ? Maybe that's what has brought us the new more reasonable Justin - who knows. And I wasn't saying take a way a female or male medical procedure. What I was saying was people have various beliefs and it's not abnormal for them to upset with how their taxes are spent if the government is asked to fund those procdeures. Did he really? There's a percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes period. In fact they get money back. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to assistance to help him become self reliant (because I believe firmly in that and have worked very hard in that fashion to support several local families), but I don't believe in perpetuating a lifestyle. Hell, I should support abortions for the poor because then there would be fewer mouths to feed and fewer kids growing up in welfare situations. But I personally look upon it as a question of personal responsibility and the belief that life starts at some point post conception. So you feel free to be sexually free but I think it's important to acknowledge that you are destroying life if you choose to have an abortion because you got pregnant from fooling around. Abortion for medical issues, absolutely. Abortion for convenience - which the bulk of them are if you study the research - then you're abdicating your personal responsibility. You know what Mike, I hear these same people every year when the annual budget process starts for our school district. In my State they're benefiting other ways they refuse to acknowledge. The value of their homes are directly tied to the competency of the school district within which their homes are located. So when they live in a top 10 school district, as they do, their homes are worth significantly more than those in the district next door. It's a screwed up way to operate school funding but that is the reality of our existing approach and if they want to pay lower taxes they should move to a less competent school district. I agree with tihs , and I will never ever ever ever spawn crotch fruit - I live in the highest school district tax rate in PA also 2% - Justin is on 30 mg a day of Adderall XL and what enables him to slow down his thinking process and put it in a legiable format on the screen :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Did he really? There's a percentage of the population that doesn't pay taxes period. In fact they get money back. Slightly separate and/or compound issue. What if there was a flat tax, and socialized medical care. Then would you feel religious beliefs could be used to justify you not wanting someone to be covered for certain things? Are you even for socialized medical care, if so, I'm confused on why based what you're saying here. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to assistance to help him become self reliant (because I believe firmly in that and have worked very hard in that fashion to support several local families), but I don't believe in perpetuating a lifestyle. Hell, I should support abortions for the poor because then there would be fewer mouths to feed and fewer kids growing up in welfare situations. But I personally look upon it as a question of personal responsibility and the belief that life starts at some point post conception. So you feel free to be sexually free but I think it's important to acknowledge that you are destroying life if you choose to have an abortion because you got pregnant from fooling around. Abortion for medical issues, absolutely. Abortion for convenience - which the bulk of them are if you study the research - then you're abdicating your personal responsibility. You're arguing a fairly different topic now. And it really isn't related to religion. Which is wonderful. I just don't get why you keep tying religion back to it. You're arguing that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be covered for convenience-related medical procedures/care/products. No religious book needed here, at least, not for the purpose of making your case. Problem is you're expecting personal responsibility from all of the population, which includes the dumbest. Who will make plenty of mistakes, and have no way to handle them. Bubba raising 10 kids on a half-person budget doesn't seem very 1st world to me, especially if he wanted to fix some mistakes he made, but couldn't afford to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 I pay for my own health insurance , what would the goverment fund me at all ? I agree with tihs , and I will never ever ever ever spawn crotch fruit - I live in the highest school district tax rate in PA also 2% - Justin is on 30 mg a day of Adderall XL and what enables him to slow down his thinking process and put it in a legiable format on the screen Not you Justin. But think about how the system will work when everyone is insured, even those who cannot pay for it. That's the question I am pointing toward. Alden recognized the direction I was going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 A, do you send your kids to a private school? were i'm going with this is, that point will be moot when/if the REP's are able to drive home their wet dream of vouchers/ private schooling. my P's live in Philly, the school dist they live in, spends 14-15k per student. you start pulling out that funding, it will trash the Public schools. next, the arguement of funding things you don't believe in, Pic any private/religious school, i don't want my money going towards belief's i don't share. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 You're arguing a fairly different topic now. And it really isn't related to religion. Which is wonderful. I just don't get why you keep tying religion back to it. You're arguing that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't be covered for convenience-related medical procedures/care/products. No religious book needed here, at least, not for the purpose of making your case. This is exactly my point Alden. I moved away from religion but you guys are still looking at it through that lens. You're asking for someone to stand up and lead without referring to their personal moral compass. When I make decisions do you think I look at what my scriptures say? No, but I have internalized them and they're part of who I am and how I think due to how I was raised. You guys aren't concerned about whether or not someone has faith, you're concerned about whether they're going to support / promote a law you disagree with. Most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs I know are rational people who make decisions based on weighing the evidence before them. They may look to God, Allah, the great unknown, for guidance but they're still making decisions based on what they perceive is the right thing to do. They may follow traditions you disagree with but that is why we are a great democratic republic where ideas can be debated and considered before decisions are made by elected representatives. I don't know what it means to make decisions without referring to your faith but instead relying simply upon the facts. That is easy when you're dealing with scenarios where the facts don't conflict. But many of the issues aren't so simple and it depends on considering what is the best thing to do for the population under consideration. That's a pretty subjective question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 A, do you send your kids to a private school? were i'm going with this is, that point will be moot when/if the REP's are able to drive home their wet dream of vouchers/ private schooling. my P's live in Philly, the school dist they live in, spends 14-15k per student. you start pulling out that funding, it will trash the Public schools. next, the arguement of funding things you don't believe in, Pic any private/religious school, i don't want my money going towards belief's i don't share. No Mike, my children attend a fine public school, just like I did. When the State of Delaware was forced to integrate our schools back in 1976 and almost every kid on my street suddenly started attending private schools my parents asked me what I wanted to do. I told them I didn't see any reason for them to pay more money for me to attend some private school if the education I was going to get in the public schools was just as good and they were already funding it with their taxes. So I rode the bus into the city in 4th, 5th, and 6th grades and I collaborated with all of my classmates. Color didn't matter to me. Intelligence and willingness to try and whether or not you were a decent person did. I paid far more for the house we moved into specifically because it is in the great school district that is offering a leg up to my children. We love the neighborhood but the main reason we moved in was because of the schools. Now let's look at the Chicago Public School district - the 3rd largest school district in the country. Those parents want choices for their kids. Most of them want opportunities not to be locked down to the specific school, especially if they cannot move from their location. I don't fundamentally agree with the solutions that are offered but I do support helping parents find a way to get a better education for their children. Charter schools and vouchers aren't going to be used in areas where the schools are successful. They just aren't. In areas like many of the CPS schools, changes need to happen and giving people the right to make use of the money they contribute for a better education is one possible way of forcing that change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilled man Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Not you Justin. But think about how the system will work when everyone is insured, even those who cannot pay for it. That's the question I am pointing toward. Alden recognized the direction I was going. Huh ? I need some details on this . Everyone is tech already has health care just alot tend not to pay for it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfishing3 Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 the hardest hit schools need the money the most. you start pulling it out, those kids will never recover. its the admin, principles etc that need replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Good luck with that Mike. The unions make that nearly impossible in many States. New York city schools are the most prominent example of that failure. Maybe union busting isn't so bad after all? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudge_Brownie Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 This is exactly my point Alden. I moved away from religion but you guys are still looking at it through that lens. You're asking for someone to stand up and lead without referring to their personal moral compass. When I make decisions do you think I look at what my scriptures say? No, but I have internalized them and they're part of who I am and how I think due to how I was raised. You guys aren't concerned about whether or not someone has faith, you're concerned about whether they're going to support / promote a law you disagree with. My concern is a religious president (or other religious lawmakers) might be unwilling to alter legislation that affects a larger portion of the country because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Some people feel that participating in that kind of change might cause trouble for them, either within their organization, or with their soul. I can change my mind, or allow some flexibility because my moral compass is guided by my opinions, and not by a prewritten set of rules that I cannot deviate from out of fear. A strongly religious leader may not be as willing. This isn't about sculpting things to make someone agree with me, whether their religious views agree with me or not is irrelevant. If 80% of the population wanted same-sex union, you think someone like Rick Santorum is going to sign off on that? It wouldn't be because he really believes it's going to hurt someone, or destroy society. It's ultimately because it conflicts with his biblical teachings, and his unwillingness to allow other people to practice differently. And you can pretend that I'm personally against it, in the 20% agreeing with him, but I'd still be bothered that he wouldn't sign. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn-E Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Funny thing is, you have to be fairly middle of the road, a centrist even, to get elected President these days. So if someone like Rick Santorum either on the Right or Left ever gets elected there will be bigger problems to worry about than just who is President. Something will have drastically shifted the electorate's attitudes and we'll be way down the path toward a terrible future. And if in your scenario 80% of the population wanted same sex marriage then I expect the Senate and Congress could come up with the necessary votes to break that veto because people would have voted for a representative and Senator who more closely aligns with their district and State beliefs. That's the purpose of checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted August 31, 2012 Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 Kind of like when Kennedy was elected. Half the country thought he answered to the Pope first because he was catholic, then the American people. Obviously unfounded, but it is always a concern when religion is involved. Romney won't answer to the people you think. His American people are the corporations and he will always answer to them first. "Corporations are people too, my friend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts