Looks like a tutoring session is necessary.

You started with myths and false accusations and associations with your "If they were ever to survey those who use Obamacare I'm sure you'll never find a right-winger, teagagger or even a Paulinista right?" nonsense.

You are proclaiming that if anyone who is Conservative accepts money from a government program, then he must be a hypocrite, a liar, a fraud, whatever.

I simply refer to human nature and the fact - that you conveniently ignored - about "rational ignorance." I will have to tutor you on THAT, too, it seems. Simply put, most people choose not to inform themselves about the intricacies of economics and political issues. This is rational because they have their lives and limited time. That is the reality of the world, not in the US but virtually everywhere.

Next, if there is a program for which the government is offering money, most people will take it. If there is a middle-class family and they might be able to get money from a college or a Pell grant, do you think that they will turn it down because they are a Republican or a Conservative?

This is an example of a reason that I rarely waste time posting to you; you are unwilling to think HONESTLY and reasonably about human nature. I refer to human nature, and your comment about "animals" shows either that you are trying to deflect or that you cannot understand human nature.

The CONCEPT being presented here is quite simple: When the government provides funds, people will take them and that will reduce what was needed previously. If the LEFT-WINGERS got their "free" university education, provided by their altruistic, loving, caring, munificent and wonderful federal government, what would happen to parents' saving for their children's futures? Sure, being a LEFT-WINGER you will say that this promotes some kind of "fairness" and this is how they do it in Europe BS, but also being a LEFT-WINGER, you do not give a flying f... about who pays for it, and will claim that the "evil rich" can, actually thinking that there are no freakin' costs!

It is incredible. The hypocrisy and the deceit, under the guise of "caring," "compassion," and "fairness," when, in fact, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

{Where you only see, in regards to a segment (LIBS) of the population, as mindless drones acting only from bad impulses, I see people who use the higher functions of their brain for the betterment of society.}

Not true. You distort my conclusions about Liberals. I know a good book that explains it all: The history, the thinking, how people become Left-wingers, and the tactics that evolve out of this background.

{You may start with concepts and ideas but you pepper your comments with thinly veiled insults or as seen from the quote below direct.

"You claim you are part of those who have "empathy" and "compassion," and that is only a deceitful maneuver, one that is dishonest and hypocritical." }

I made an accurate observation. I stand by it. Left-winger often use the following tactic: They claim that their program (ObummerCare, for example, or other types of welfare) shows "compassion" and proclaim that they have established this infrangible link. Therefore, if one disagrees with them, the person who disagrees LACKS the quality that the LEFTIST has by virtue of the fact that anyone who disagrees with the LIBERAL agenda must lack that quality.

Nothing is substantiated. It is just declared. It is the reasoning of children who try to get what they want from their parents. It is an attempt at intimidation that often works: People want to be considered fair and kind, so they hesitate to resist the LEFT-WINGER brands and labels, and they give in to the false accusations and vicious attacks on their very character.

A book written by a guy with no cred in his field---a conservative simpleton with a ridiculous theory ( really more like a manifesto) that Liberals are suffering from a mysterious mental illness---at least he tries to equate this to the far left ( extremist of any kind left right are dangerous ) unlike you do.

I'll pass such propaganda offers nothing tangible.

I heard differently. The author actually has several publications in his field in refereed journals. And he did a thorough job of research, for years. Heck, the book includes over 460 references!

But it appears that you actually read the book, based on your conclusions about it.

I hope that you enjoyed it. Which chapter did you like best? I liked the one where the author astutely showed the echoes of Marxist thought in Modern Liberal dogma.

Oh, you referred to the Liberal Mind above. I thought you were referring to the OTHER book! My bad.

Both publications you mention will be relegated to the darkest confines of irrelevancy----I rather read the microwave manual.

The target audience for those books is extremely limited. I would never partake in such ill conceived, perverse, and unscientific works.

cmdinc wrote--"thats OK Obamacare will make everything alright"

His lackluster attempt at sarcasm (if you're going to do it, do it with style) hinged on the fantasy that Obamacare is an abject failure. So I proceeded to use sarcasm to illustrate my point.

You need to add statistics and probability to the evolving Mishi syllabus because it supports my claim; within a complex system, statistical theory, randomness and uncertainty are modeled by probability theory. That's where my "IF" came into play there is scientific statistical evidence that shows that "If they were ever to survey those who use Obamacare you WILL find immoral right-wingers, teagaggesr and Paulinistas using the social services the want to deny others.

I don't ignore human nature I have many times equated the good and the bad aspects of humanity evenly across s the board it is you who prefers to unilateral place the base aspects of the human mind almost entirely on LIBERALS while canonizing Conservative ideology----this is a fallacy that I will not judge you harshly on because you have not had any formal scientific training or education.

I cannot understand why you can't accept the fact that we are animals: In taxonomy Humans belong to the Eukarya domain {[like Bikonta all life on earth, also included, oldest eukaryotes, common ancestor with them; cellular nucleus; first eukaryotic multicellular organisms; plants} Iingdom is Animalia/Metazoa the Chordata is phylum (vertebrates). Classified as mammalians. It's order is primate (like bonobos and apes). It's Family - Hominidae [great apes, hominids; fist-walking; family with Ponginae, Orangutans, also included, oldest living ones, common ancestor with them] The Human's Subfamily - Homininae [or hominines; knuckle-walking; includes gorillas but not orangutans]
It'sTribe - Hominini [or hominins; includes chimpanzees but not gorillas]. It's Genus - Homo( that's ok mishi you can say HOMO and not be flagged for it) [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)] and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens

See, we are animals RIGHT-WINGERS are just lower in the evolutionary ladder.

BINGO!

I may just pick that up, thanks.

No, those books are more lasting than most about Liberals because they do not deal with the present situation. They deal with more permanent matters. The one author dissects the Liberal mind; he is a psychiatrist. The pathologies of the Liberal mind that he analyzes applies in the past, the present and the future. It REALLY is insightful. Let me provide one passage:

"[Modern Liberalism] does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law…it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination…it does not celebrate…the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating…It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity."
-----------------------
Following is what Modern Liberals EMBRACE:

"[The] liberal mind is passionate about…a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice…[According to the Modern Liberals, these victims] bear no responsibility for their own problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults of failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment…lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance…Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions…[including] discrimination…capitalism, globalization and imperialism…The liberal cure…is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society…[the Modern Liberal] recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity…fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence…excuses financial obligation…denigrates marriage and the family…defies religious and social tradition."

GREAT STUFF! INSIGHT INTO THE MIND OF LIBERALS!

{within a complex system, statistical theory, randomness and uncertainty are modeled by probability theory.}

So? But you forget something: The error of measurement - It can be IMMENSE. It is invalid to think that you can measure and predict what is really in the social sciences in order to manage an economy.

Please read Hayek. Hayek wrote and spoke about the dangers of "scientism" which is the myth that the so-called methods of natural sciences can be applied to social phenomena. Hayek knew that the idea of LEFT-WINGERS that we can engineer the macroeconomy like engineers design a bridge is simple hubris and idiocy.
-----------------
{ there is scientific statistical evidence that shows that "If they were ever to survey those who use Obamacare you WILL find immoral right-wingers, teagaggesr and Paulinistas using the social services the want to deny others.}

There you go again - Distorting.

Of course. I referred to human nature - AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. As I wrote 3 or 5 times already, if there is "free" stuff available, human beings will take it. It is the rare human being who would turn down $ from the government. But you deny human nature and claim that anyone who thinks the government should reduce programs is a hypocrite and liar and immoral (whatever) if he accepts anything from these programs.

That, dear sir, is a denial of human nature, a denial of reality.

{ it is you who prefers to unilateral place the base aspects of the human mind almost entirely on LIBERALS while canonizing Conservative ideology----this is a fallacy that I will not judge you harshly on because you have not had any formal scientific training or education.}

There is no Conservative "ideology." Thatcher rightly said, "The facts of life are Conservative." Buckley said, "Conservatives are chained to reality." Russell Kirk, considered by many to be the father of today's conservatism, said specifically that conservatism not only is not an ideology, it is the ABSENCE of an ideology. It is a way of mind, an approach to life.

The central theme on which all Conservatives will agree and align is the Constitution. And the Constitution promotes - before freakin LIBERALS destroyed much of it - diversity in its DEcentralization of power.

Liberals have no monopoly on the "base aspects" of humans. They simply have a mindset that predisposes them to certain things, drives them in a specific direction. And I already wrote about that many times. I can do it again or recommend a book by an author who has provided insights into the education, history and values of Modern Liberals.

As far as my "formal scientific training," I would never reveal it to a Liberal, of course. The statement would only be distorted and twisted and used as some way to attack. I have no need of recognition from Left-wingers.

"I cannot understand why you can't accept the fact that we are animals....(attempts at trying to sound well ed-you-kate-tid by usin' sci-en-tif-ik words follows)"

I accept evolution. If you want to start a thread on the difference between animal and humans, please do so and let me know. But why the Wiki "cut and paste" with the "Bikonta" and so on? Attempt at impressing the other posters here?

And because I do look at evolution, it includes the evolution of our humanness, our thoughts, our desires and so on. LIBERALS do not accept this. They actually believe that society can be managed, and human beings can educated out of their natures. Liberals cannot accept that humans are not Blank Slates. Why not read my review of that book, eh? It is very long. On Amazon. Go take a look. Go ahead.

Hey, if people can afford insurance, then they should buy it. But LEFT-WINGERS want to FORCE people to buy stuff. FORCE. By penalty of law, LEFTIST LAW.

Prices will go up - the hidden costs, of course because we already see this in Medicare. It is not possible for the government to provide better services and/or lower costs than a free market. They cannot. When health care is minimally regulated, the quality goes up (or maintains) and prices go down. This can be proven.

{Mishima isn't paying for anyone. Especially since he claims he is working in Japan.}

Who said I was working in Japan? You did it yet again, made up stuff. Show me where I wrote that I was working in Japan. Show it. Stop making things up.

You did it again. I will not comment but only say you are wrong yet again. It is obvious and I have already said why, many times, and it is perfectly obvious how you are wrong.

No, the book about the Liberal Mind is by an astute psychiatrist.

A couple of passages for your perusal:

First of all, this brilliant author writes the reason that he wrote the book:

"I attack the dominant socialist program, the modern liberal agenda's welfare statism and moral relativism, as pathological distortions of the normal social instincts...The liberal agenda's invasive social policies foster economic irresponsibility, pathological dependency and social conflict."

Dr. Rossiter describes psychological pathologies that drive some of LIBERALS to push their agendas and contrasts this with the normal and healthy adult who strives to be autonomous, enterprising, and industrious:

"[A]ll competent adults know that actions have consequences. For the competent man to act freely is to assume risk and accept responsibility, [but] in the liberal agenda, we have a society of literally care-free persons, each of whom is falsely held to be responsible for everyone else, and none of whom is properly held to be responsible for himself."

The contrast with the mentally healthy adult is quite dramatic:

"The liberal agenda’s invasive social policies foster economic irresponsibility, pathological dependency and social conflict [and] the modern liberal agenda’s welfare statism and moral relativism [are] pathological distortions of normal social instincts…Instead of promoting a rational society of competent adults who solve the problems of living through voluntary cooperation, [it] creates an irrational society of child-like adults who depend upon governments to take care of them…The liberal agenda undermines the character traits essential for individual liberty, material security, voluntary cooperation and social order."

In the book, "The Liberal Mind," Dr. Rossiter explains the development of their pathology:

"[It] is the result of early trauma [from] a personal history of neglect, deprivation and abuse, including early deficits in attachment, attention, affection, empathy, validation, direction and discipline [that] lead him to fear freedom itself: the prospect of genuine autonomy arouses primitive fears of aloneness and danger. The challenge of self-reliance reactivates primitive fears of inadequacy."

Oooo , i have to read that one ....

From where have you preferred I copy and paste the info from? Sarah Palin's bible or Fred Phelps? I could have scanned it from my copy of Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, by Gerard J. Tortora or from my notes but that would take too long. Yes I could have typed it from the ole gourd but I type sloooow so why bother? I assure you the wiki definition is accurate.

Mishi there you go again! Humans are just plain ole animals, that's all there's nothing noble about the species. The only difference between you and an Ass is that you wear shorts and talk on a cell phone, the Ass toils in a field all day and only wants an occasional carrot----come to think of it in this example the Ass has superiority no?

I'm sorry that it was too technical for you, I understand that you, having no schooling in Anatomy and Physiology or Psychology find it hard to conceptualize what I presented.

All that being said the complicated machinery that is the human mind with all it faults (as defined by society) is capable of bypassing much of the murky stuff that would have us be nothing more than hunter gatherers. The reptilian brain makes it's self known through aggression, bigotry and hate but humans for the most part dwell in the cerebral cortex. It's here that all the good that humans can achieve is born.

In short you are barking-up the wrong LIB, I am perfectly comfortable in saying that the species is just part of a long line of creatures descended from the first cell.

The problem is that you equate the small fringe of radicals as all LIBS, I however have categorized 99.9 % of the Repunks, teagaggers, Paulinistas, Cons here as violent RIGHT-WINGERS. Which, "that book" do you want me to read by whom? Do you know the author?

pure PROPAGANDA, you're 100% correct!

Truth!

{From where have you preferred I copy and paste the info from?}

It ain't the source. Wiki's OK.

It ain't the source..... That is not the problem. I suggest you read the post again.

LOL

{Humans are just plain ole animals, that's all there's nothing noble about the species.}

OK, a Peter Singer kind of guy. Don't you know about him? He is a Left-winger icon. Thinks like other Liberals who believe animals and humans are at the same level. Heck, Singer went so far as to say that animals should be able to sue in court (properly represented, of course). I am not kidding, and you can find this LIBERAL right on YouTube and on LEFT-WINGER sites. He, too, thinks humans are the same as animals.

{the Ass toils in a field all day and only wants an occasional carrot----come to think of it in this example the Ass has superiority no?}

And you do not even know about animals!

But tell the truth here: Do you think that animals are superior to humans? You know, the usual Liberal drivel about how they balance nature, do not despoil the planet, do not kill their own kind, blah, blah, blah. Do you?

"The reptilian brain makes it's self known through aggression, bigotry and hate"

What is that expression about just a little knowledge makes people worse off?

Reptiles hate? Are bigoted?

Don't you see how you contradict yourself? You claim we are like animals, yet you put in terms like "bigotry" and "hate" at your convenience. What do those terms imply? And can one actually understand a concept without knowing its negation? Apply that to what you put in the mix. Sorry for the cognitive dissonance it will cause.....

{I am perfectly comfortable in saying that the species is just part of a long line of creatures descended from the first cell.}

"Comfortable?" Show me where I wrote disagreement. You are engaging in fallacies in every post, logical inconsistencies. Evolution does not negate the uniqueness of human beings, of course. But your Left-winger ideology dooms you to having to conceive of human beings as qualitatively the same as animals; Liberal dogma requires Liberals to conceptualize humans at essentially the same level as animals in order to establish the new society. It is a self-contradiction. Laughable.

{These books are nothing more than partisan hack jobs that say if you vote against the failed policies of the conservative's you have mental problems.}

No, it is the LIBERALS who have the failed policies. Take Head Start: $180 BILLION down the drain, and the LEFT-WINGERS ask for more $$$$. The logical outcome of Left-wingerism took place in Cambodia. A smaller version took place in France, just after our War of Independence. We got it right, but the radicals there cut off the heads of 40,000 to start the new society. Hey, the Liberal icon, Marx himself, said that the French Revolution was the first COMMUNIST revolution!

You need to know your own history - the one that the LEFT-WINGERS inherited.

I put up charts and graphs because I know that liberals like pictures and television. I have to take that into account.

Oh, you like Singer?

How about his idea that it is fine for humans to have sex with animals? The animal should not be forced but consent. Another Left-winger icon.

In response to my reporting about Head Start, you wrote:

"I could care less about other countries because I am an American."

Hey, Head Start IS an American program. A failed LIBERAL one.....

invalid

What happens between consenting adult animals is no one else's business.

Null.

I wrote about Head Start - that is what you replied to. Stop the distortions.

{What happens between consenting adult animals is no one else's business.}

Welcome to LIBERAL-LAND!

I am still enroll
I also agree with you

well that's odd I swear it was 2.

You know that slugs and you have a common ancestor down the line. Why can you accept that humans are animals? unique yes but so were the Dodos and you know what became of them.

Sheesh man can you take a joke? You know even your contemporaries don't believe half the woo-woo stuff you do.

{Why can you accept that humans are animals?}

I can and do, of course, in the sense of evolution and that there are homologous structures. I could refer to language and such, but I know the Leftist BSers who will claim that animals have "language," too, blah, blah, blah, and I do not want to start tutoring you about the brain and language, the Broca's Area that is similar in chimps and such (did not need to cut and paste that, by the way), blah, blah.

Anyone that has read my post will know that I have been an Anatomy and Physiology tutor in NYC colleges, so I doubt that you can tutor me on anything unless you are a Phd with academic chairs. but professor since you bring chimps into the discussion name the structure that keeps chimps from speaking.Other than their brains not having evolved for speech.

{Anyone that has read my post will know that I have been an Anatomy and Physiology tutor in NYC colleges}

OK, you know anatomy. I know Japanese. Neither has anything to do with this. I already agreed that human beings evolved. What the f... do you want? I see where it is going: We are like dogs on the street, giving in to sexual impulses and jumping on whatever is nearby. Therefore, we need to pass out condoms and give free abortions to deal with the results of these animalistic impulses that are really not in our control.

I broached language for one difference. Brain evolution. I will not agree with your immoral and heinous excuses for such behavior. Sorry. I have standards and know that by holding people to standards, it is not only good for that person but for society, family, and the nation itself.

As a student, I wouldn't have wanted to be tutored by anyone so closed-minded that they felt they could learn nothing from anyone who didn't have a "superior" paper qualification.
No wonder the US education system is circling the drain.

[Adds; under the circumstances, a basic grasp of spelling and grammar would admittedly be an added bonus]

It was you who proposed giving me a tutoring lesson, I merely let you know that I'm proficient on the subject and do not need your help, but thanks for the offer nonetheless.

Now that it has drilled into that solid cranium that people do give in to their urges may you can work on the fact that your morality will do little to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Given the fact that you deplore abortions and unwanted babies being raised on public assistance---you MUST see that prophylactic condom use best serves your purposes.

Why do u lie and defame people on public webpages?
U got a shankin' attorney?

I have asked you via PM not to bother me and I'm doing so here. DO NOT POST TO ME ANYMORE.

Molli I have no interest in listening to your opinions or insults. DO NOT POST TO ME AGAIN as I will not post to you.

{people do give in to their urges may you can work on the fact that your morality will do little to prevent unwanted pregnancies.}

Wrong, and you admit it to yourself a bit there.

First of all, little can be done with ANY type of program, that is true. It has ALWAYS gone on. Heck, in some parts of the Middle East, there is a horrible death penalty for our-of-marriage sex, yet it still goes on.

But the research shows that abstinence does work better than the other "sex ed" programs.

But something else gets established here: Let's say that such programs are not better but about the same (which they are not, they are better). A standard of morality has been establish. By schools emphasizing abstinence, they are telling the children, parents and society that this is what EXPECTED. That that is the STANDARD by which we at least must TRY to hold ourselves and our children.

Don't give me the BS that people are still "gonna do it," so that is hypocrisy. Many people do not, and the majority of high school and middle school students do not, so let us hold out the hope and the standard of something better for them, instead of trying to convince them that they are no better or fundamentally different from ANIMALS that screw on the streets. That is the Leftist standard as you present it: All we can hope for is to reduce disease. But abstinence programs reduce that too, by the way.

Incidently, I sent off the mass of research to another poster in a PM.

{PPFA supports as do I abstinence in conjunction with sex education}

But the point is that such programs actually do not promote abstinence. They present it extremely briefly, some programs actually containing only about 2 statements, and it is presented not as something related to mental health, responsibility, morality, self-respect or anything like that. It is very briefly presented as only one AMONG MANY alternatives to avoiding pregnancy. Good abstinence education - the programs that work SIGNIFICANTLY better than these others, promotes a total approach, a life approach.

And this is better for society. The very concept that abstinence is the "right" thing to do also promotes the very institution of marriage in the long run. By tying sexual activity to responsibily and duty and loyalty, it endorses marriage itself. It serves the purpose of marriage.

The fact that many are going to "do it anyway," before and outside of marriage, changes nothing. What is does is reinforce and establish marriage as the only place within which sex is acceptable. The fact that many will not adhere to this changes nothing. It is a standard of a civilized society.

I see, no hanky panky before marriage. Not realistic and not fun---Jack says tapping DAT Ass is like tasting ice cream ya gotta do it before you find the one you like.

"I have no interest in listening to your opinions or insults"

If you're not interested in my opinions, don't read them.
Simples.
I don't do "insults".

[ADDS:] Please stop posting "white noise" videos whenever I comment. Please stop misrepresenting me in your comments, both in response to me and in asides to others, as well as off-site. Oh -- and please do not send any more abusive PMs. Thank you.

No, we are trying to disabuse you of the usual Left-winger myths.

who you talking about? I guess you are also guilty of "can't debate them call them a troll".

{ I guess you are also guilty of "can't debate them call them a troll".}

Yes. Leftist tactic #47.

Well they why don't you propose a real life solution that cost us tax payers zero dollars?

{Well they why don't you propose a real life solution that cost us tax payers zero dollars?}

There is always a cost. In this case: RESPONSIBILITY.

Those who created the life pay. Pay by taking care of the child. Or pay in advance by abstaining from the obvious. Delay gratification. Don't expect the government to save one from one's responsibilities. Don't listen to Left-winger immoral excuses.

I got one...you knock up your girlfriend, you get a job and pay for your child...there...no tax dollars

{you knock up your girlfriend, you get a job and pay for your child...there...no tax dollars}

No, no, no. Knock her up, then have her go alone to the welfare office and get housing, food stamps and cash. Then, sneak in when the social workers are not there checking. (I actually lived among these people and saw it all the time; they even bragged about it.)

Hey, then it is FREE. Free government stuff!

Just to remind you, a more accurate way to describe "unborn babies" is "NOT babies"!

OK, gotta run. Rachel Maddow is just starting! She's a beacon of truth you know !!!!!!

I already explained how Maddow deceives. It is unfortunate that you refuse to think about the cogent and irrefutable explanation that I gave.

That's how it goes for the majority, only ignorant RIGHT-WINGERS say otherwise.

Funny how he values those babies lives until they are born, then they are expected to survive, ignoring the reality he himself describes as the problem, maybe letting die in dumpsters is the merciful RIGHT-WING solution.

Responsibility is fine and to be expected but you dismiss the reality that children will be born out of wedlock to unemployed and too often incapable individuals---a majority of them are RIGHT-WING bigots from miserable red states.

So if there are no social programs in place to help them, what becomes of them? It would be pretty stupid to think that eliminating government programs will force people to make right choices.

You can't go around debating that abortion should be eliminated because you care about life and then callously demand that people find a way to support those children no matter what----really are you daft?

R.E.A.L.I.T.Y------ can you at least try to stay within it's realm?

{you dismiss the reality that children will be born out of wedlock to unemployed and too often incapable individuals}

No, it is not dismissed. Not in the slightest.

You are saying that the children are doomed. Essentially, you are condemning them. You are advocating the ending of their lives because they MIGHT have a biological parent who is poor or irresponsible.

That is the first thing I would never accept: Kill the unborn rather than take that chance. I cannot accept that immoral reasoning. (Besides, it is not true. People kill the unborn child because it is inconvenient, not to avoid potential poverty.)

Next, our society should uphold moral standards and hold people responsible. To say that either the government will pay for the child or that it can be destroyed if one does not want the burden - what kind of message does that give?

The responsibility and fault is which those who created the life. They need to be held responsible. They need to endure the response of a community that would reject such actions. A community that would openly CONDEMN such actions and DEMAND - not necessarily legally, but morally - adherence to common human decency.

Heck, when I was processing my family history to get my Irish citizenship, I found a little family “secret.” My grandparents got married – 6 months before their first child was born! They did the right thing, and had 3 more sons.

Too “harsh?” Really? Well, then. Better to have “compassion” and kill the unborn!

{So if there are no social programs in place to help them, what becomes of them? It would be pretty stupid to think that eliminating government programs will force people to make right choices.}

Left-winger nonsense. A person speaks out against something, and the Liberal IMMEDIATELY proclaims that the person wants absolutely no such programs for anyone at any time. Say there are too many regulations? The Liberal says the person wants NO regulations. Say government should be limited? The Leftist says the person wants to eliminate all government!

I will write it again - about the 48th time - welfare should be give to only the insane, the severely handicapped and children who have been abandoned.

Yes, government programs do weaken communities and families. Government programs do lessen responsibility and the need for planning. And yes, there is a need for some programs, of course.

But because people cannot restrain themselves and do not work? For that we should ask the public to pay for the killing of the unborn and/or take care of the child?

ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME OR WHAT?

{Funny how he values those babies lives until they are born, then they are expected to survive, ignoring the reality he himself describes as the problem, maybe letting die in dumpsters is the merciful RIGHT-WING solution.}

There you go again! (What great man said that before?) Just make up stuff as you go along....

distortion

OK...then back to the root of the discussion..using your logic planned parenthood is not needed then.
I would agree Planned Parenthood does some good things..but i believe an organization could provide these services wihtout federal tax dollars

They do good indeed. I can understand some hesitation at having an org using Federal money but unlike banks and corps that have taken federal money PPFA is transparent about how the funds are utilized.

Look at it tho way if PPFA stop providing their services what will happen? There will be a lot less educated people around which means an increase in pregnancies, STDS and people who need help planing a family would have less resources available. All this means more dependance on the government ---This tough love BS you get from conservative RIGHT-WING loons is pointless.

"There you go again! (What great man said that before?) Just make up stuff as you go along...." Bozo the clown? Why not you do with blatant impunity.

I just realized what the problem is---you hate the American way of life, perhaps a repressed homogeneous society like Japan may be more to your liking.

{Look at it tho way if PPFA stop providing their services what will happen?}

Fewer unborn babies will be executed?

{a repressed homogeneous society like Japan}

Excellent example that reveals your thinking. Making PROCLAMATIONS about something the liberal does not understand, has not studied, and has never experienced.

Revealing.

More babies who will grow in loveless homes, most likely will become criminals and a drain to society---of course once born right-wingers will say fuck them they are not my responsibility.

Hey you do so all the time.

{More babies who will grow in loveless homes, most likely will become criminals and a drain to society}

Translation: Better to kill them before they are born, rather than take a chance that they may grow up in poverty or become criminals.

A few incidents that have not been settled yet, in America everyone gets sued. I myself had to seek a lawyer after finally having enough from a few BS trolls who always tossed around false intent in suing me---G-d I love NYC lawyers don't appreciate a mean son of a bitch shark until you need one. Anyway look into supermarkets, schools, hospitals, churches, your employer chances are they will have been sued at least once not all but most. Will you advocate shutting them down?

Well hero you want to take away the choice from women by financial means. Me personally? I've made some hard choices to prevent being in a spot that my wife and I have to abort a pregnancy---of course ultimately the power is in my wife's hands. Not everyone will plan ahead to prevent a pregnancy. posture as you will it's UP TO individuals to decide if an abortion needs to happen, not some RIGHT-WINGER who offers no solution beyond abstinence.

Actually the second one is sttled PPH admitted and paid.
lol @ NYC lawyers....hear ya. I have had to hire some through the years for one thing or another. Toughest one i hired was a 60 year old grandmother...she kicked ass.
Back to PPH..No i wouldn't like to see them all shutdown, but the main post was that a state had to cut spending and shut four of them down. Should they be 100% dependent on tax revenue? Can they combine small offices into fewer larger ones to save $? There are things that can be done..but just as the right goes nuts when the talk in gun control...the left goes nuts when PPH is in the discussion.
After rereading your post i see you implied shutting down entities for being sued..no free market would prevail..but the circumstances are PPH already recieves federal funds directly..then to commit fraud for more...not cool. Most of the examples you gave have no ties to tax dollars so the free market takes care of them,,if guilty the penalty might shut them down anyway.

{Well hero you want to take away the choice from women by financial means.}

Distortion. I am not "taking away" any choice. None. That is invalid, illogical.

{Not everyone will plan ahead to prevent a pregnancy. posture as you will it's UP TO individuals to decide if an abortion needs to happen}

Of course. It is now legal to kill an unborn baby, so people do not have to worry about prosecution.

But it is morally wrong. That is without question. And by saying that "accidents happen" changes nothing. If I am drunk and drive, and then kill someone BY ACCIDENT, I am totally responsible for that because I first CHOSE to drink, then I CHOSE to drive. I must pay the full penalty.

It takes a series of deliberate actions, in which people are in control, to produce a pregnancy.

"Needs" to happen? You mean they WANT the abortion to be performed. It does not "need" to "happen." You write it like it is some kind of a necessity and almost as if it is some passive action, something has happened TO people.