Pro Choice?

Beefy

Beefy

Worst gambler ever
Pro Choice has become a term that pro abortionists use to espouse that their opinion on the issue is about choice, freedom, personal decisions.

But as usual, they're flat full of shit. They're not pro choice, because if they were, they would really care about choices.

If they were pro choice, and honest about it, how would they fell about the following?


School Vouchers
Social Security and Retirement
The 2nd Amendment
The ability to write a memo on a check (1st amendment)

For schools, they're anti choice. People should not have the ability to choose where their kids go to school unless they can afford private schools. Eat the rich right liberals? LOL. Give the more affluent a choice in schooling, but take it away from the poor. Yet you're still "pro choice".

Social Security. Should people be incharge of their own retirement and be able to CHOOSE whether or not they participate in a government run retirement scam? Of course not. But they're still "pro choice".

Should people be allowed to excercise their freedom to choose gun ownership? Well, maybe, but only under the guidelines the left enacts. Yet, they're "pro choice".

Should people be able to choose to say whatever they want so long as it is not harming anyone else? No, Cypress and BAC think people should be jailed nd fined for writing a memo on a check that the recipient finds offensive. But they're "pro choice".

There's plenty more examples.

Call it what it is. Pro abortion, not pro choice. You leftists have all but forgotten that choices are what make us free, so when you claim to be "pro choice", mean it, or die.
 
People just do not all make the same choices, that is what choice is all about.
some people even chose to be stupid and vote for bush.
But that was their freedom, to ultimately give up more freedoms.
 
uscitizen said:
People just do not all make the same choices, that is what choice is all about.
some people even chose to be stupid and vote for bush.
But that was their freedom, to ultimately give up more freedoms.
Click to expand...

Of course, nothing to add from you.

Are you pro choice? Which choices?
 
Seriously Beefy,

Have you ever heard of "political framing"? The terms "pro-choice" and "Pro-life" are the textbook examples of that. It implies that their opposition is anti-choice, or anti-life, which is ridiculous. Try not to think to hard about it.
 
Beefy said:
Pro Choice has become a term that pro abortionists use to espouse that their opinion on the issue is about choice, freedom, personal decisions.

But as usual, they're flat full of shit. They're not pro choice, because if they were, they would really care about choices.

If they were pro choice, and honest about it, how would they fell about the following?


School Vouchers
Social Security and Retirement
The 2nd Amendment
The ability to write a memo on a check (1st amendment)

For schools, they're anti choice. People should not have the ability to choose where their kids go to school unless they can afford private schools. Eat the rich right liberals? LOL. Give the more affluent a choice in schooling, but take it away from the poor. Yet you're still "pro choice".
Click to expand...
this is a bullshit statement. Vouchers are welfare for people who can't afford to send their kids to private school and want not only their tax money back but other peoples tax money as well. I am all for people having a choice in school. But just as I don't want public funding for abortion I don't want public funding for religious education. If you want every penny you paid into the public school system in taxes I am fine with that but won't get back enough to fund a semester in a private school.

Social Security. Should people be incharge of their own retirement and be able to CHOOSE whether or not they participate in a government run retirement scam? Of course not. But they're still "pro choice".
Click to expand...
SS is an insurance program, that is what it is called. THe government makes you participate in all sorts of insurance programs in case. SS is no different.

Should people be allowed to excercise their freedom to choose gun ownership? Well, maybe, but only under the guidelines the left enacts. Yet, they're "pro choice".
Click to expand...
no argument from me here.

Should people be able to choose to say whatever they want so long as it is not harming anyone else? No, Cypress and BAC think people should be jailed nd fined for writing a memo on a check that the recipient finds offensive. But they're "pro choice"".
Click to expand...
Again I agree

There's plenty more examples.

Call it what it is. Pro abortion, not pro choice. You leftists have all but forgotten that choices are what make us free, so when you claim to be "pro choice", mean it, or die.
Click to expand...
 
If a person sends their child to a private school they should get as much from the government as if they sent them to a public school - that's sort of the logic behind it. Giving them their taxes isn't going to be fully fair, because they will be paying for everyone elses children all their life to go to school at full price. That's sort of what it is - you pay insurance your whole life so that your children can go to school. Giving someone a break for a small period of time doesn't make up.
 
Socrtease said:
this is a bullshit statement. Vouchers are welfare for people who can't afford to send their kids to private school and want not only their tax money back but other peoples tax money as well. I am all for people having a choice in school. But just as I don't want public funding for abortion I don't want public funding for religious education. If you want every penny you paid into the public school system in taxes I am fine with that but won't get back enough to fund a semester in a private school.

SS is an insurance program, that is what it is called. THe government makes you participate in all sorts of insurance programs in case. SS is no different.

no argument from me here.

Again I agree
Click to expand...


Saying that SS is forced government coersion just like a lot of other programs doesn't get you off the hook fellaf. Its still taking your choices away from you. Roll over if you'd like, but don't expect me to.

And I would be fine then with vouchers being used only for public schools. Would you? At least it would give parents some choice.
 
Beefy said:
Saying that SS is forced government coersion just like a lot of other programs doesn't get you off the hook fellaf. Its still taking your choices away from you. Roll over if you'd like, but don't expect me to.

And I would be fine then with vouchers being used only for public schools. Would you? At least it would give parents some choice.
Click to expand...

Most would have a pension anyway if the government didn't provide it. The government can just do it easier, and this ensures that no matter what you have income whenever you're dyin. I'm sure next, however, communists will take over the world!
 
Beefy said:
Saying that SS is forced government coersion just like a lot of other programs doesn't get you off the hook fellaf. Its still taking your choices away from you. Roll over if you'd like, but don't expect me to.

And I would be fine then with vouchers being used only for public schools. Would you? At least it would give parents some choice.
Click to expand...
I live in a western state that is not surrounded by water. How does a child that lives in a small town 120 miles away from the next nearest town get the benefit of vouchers? Also you wouldn't need vouchers for a public school system if all the schools in the city were open enrollment first come first served. Would still leave alot of kids in their school which might not be living up to expectations.

Also you don't think the state should be able to force people to pay into an insurance program for liability when you drive? Should people be allowed to drive without insurance?
 
Socrtease said:
I live in a western state that is not surrounded by water. How does a child that lives in a small town 120 miles away from the next nearest town get the benefit of vouchers? Also you wouldn't need vouchers for a public school system in all the schools in the city were open enrollment first come first served. Would still leave alot of kids in their school which might not be living up to expectations.
Click to expand...

Listen, it would only be fair if you gave them back all the taxes they had ever paid for public school in their entire life and told them they'd never have to pay public school taxes again.

Otherwise, just recongnize the supremacy of government run schools...
 
Watermark said:
Listen, it would only be fair if you gave them back all the taxes they had ever paid for public school in their entire life and told them they'd never have to pay public school taxes again.

Otherwise, just recongnize the supremacy of government run schools...
Click to expand...
Vouchers for private school are welfare for people otherwise not rich enough to send their kids to a private school. Why do you support this type of socialism. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to Harvard either but I am sure lots of people would love a voucher system that let them pay their in state tuition for a harvard education, or yale if you are so inclined. But Private education should stay just that Private. I love to listen to right wingers tell me how vouchers that give people more money than they paid into the system is fair when they bitch about the earned income tax credit that gives people more money than they paid into the tax system.
 
Socrtease said:
Vouchers for private school are welfare for people otherwise not rich enough to send their kids to a private school. Why do you support this type of socialism. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to Harvard either but I am sure lots of people would love a voucher system that let them pay their in state tuition for a harvard education, or yale if you are so inclined. But Private education should stay just that Private. I love to listen to right wingers tell me how vouchers that give people more money than they paid into the system is fair when they bitch about the earned income tax credit that gives people more money than they paid into the tax system.
Click to expand...

MKK...

Then pay them back their taxes!

The word "welfare" doesn't scare me, BTW.
 
Socrtease said:
Should people be allowed to drive without insurance?
Click to expand...

Yes. Insurance should be optional and only cover one's self. That's the most fair way to do it. You should be able to choose whether or not you're covered. And if you choose not to be covered, then you're not covered.

It is not something that should be handed to the trial lawyers like a bigassed golden egg on a platter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top