PDA

View Full Version : Pro Choice?



Beefy
01-22-2008, 08:52 PM
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.

Epicurus
01-22-2008, 08:53 PM
My favorite LP slogan:

Vote Libertarian: Pro-Choice on Everything!

uscitizen
01-22-2008, 09:35 PM
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.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 09:42 PM
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.

Of course, nothing to add from you.

Are you pro choice? Which choices?

uscitizen
01-22-2008, 09:50 PM
how limp and flacid.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 09:56 PM
I'm pro-choice I'm just agianst abortion.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 09:59 PM
how limp and flacid.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. My sincerest regrets.

Now for the love of god, say something that means anything, ANYTHING.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:03 PM
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.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:08 PM
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". 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". 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". 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"". 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.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:12 PM
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.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:12 PM
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


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.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:13 PM
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.

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!

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:15 PM
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.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?

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:17 PM
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.

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...

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:18 PM
Also Beefy who is the big Hawaiian in your avatar?

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:19 PM
Also Beefy who is the big Hawaiian in your avatar?

Israel Kamakawiwo'ole

Usually called "Iz", for obvious reasons.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:21 PM
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...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
01-22-2008, 10:22 PM
Ahh that is why it used to say Bruddah Iz.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:23 PM
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.

MKK...

Then pay them back their taxes!

The word "welfare" doesn't scare me, BTW.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:23 PM
Should people be allowed to drive without insurance?

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.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:23 PM
And I think that college should be free.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:25 PM
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.

Dude, seriously, there are so many people out there who, if they sold all their assets, couldn't pay for the damages. Think about it. If someone comes and hits your kid, and your kid is left retarded for the rest of their life, you can't barely make up all that's been lost (financially) because they don't own enough to pay the settlement. People can't pay what they don't have. Mandatory insurance is the fairest way to do it. It is not a choice to rip other people off.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:27 PM
Dude, seriously, there are so many people out there who, if they sold all their assets, couldn't pay for the damages. Think about it. If someone comes and hits your kid, and your kid is left retarded for the rest of their life, you can't barely make up all that's been lost (financially) because they don't own enough to pay the settlement. People can't pay what they don't have. Mandatory insurance is the fairest way to do it. It is not a choice to rip other people off.

That's why you should have insurance. Making it mandatory doesn't mean people will get it.

If you want to be covered, buy insurance. Its pretty simple.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:29 PM
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.So you don't mind if someone without insurance hits you does more damage than your insurance will pay and you can't get shit out of them cause they have nothing to take? Insurance is supposed to help keep society from having to pay your medical bills when your insurance runs out and you can't pay your medical bills. Again wanting to shove the bills on to other tax payers so you don't have to have insurance that pays someone elses bills when YOU cause the accident.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 10:30 PM
That's why you should have insurance. Making it mandatory doesn't mean people will get it.

If you want to be covered, buy insurance. Its pretty simple.

Making it mandatory means a hell of a lot more people get it.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:31 PM
So you don't mind if someone without insurance hits you does more damage than your insurance will pay and you can't get shit out of them cause they have nothing to take? Insurance is supposed to help keep society from having to pay your medical bills when your insurance runs out and you can't pay your medical bills. Again wanting to shove the bills on to other tax payers so you don't have to have insurance that pays someone elses bills when YOU cause the accident.

Your premise is that the taxpayer should pay for whatever insurance one doesn't have. I disagree.

People should cover their own asses. What is so novel about that? Cover your ass, don't expect anyone else to.

Insure yourself. If you want to be insured, then buy goddamned insurance and don't expect the state to mandate that everyone else has enough incase youre wronged.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:33 PM
Most people have a 50/100 policy. If I sue the persons insurance and get a max damages award of policy limits I get 15k tops and my client get 35k. Hardly a winfall. The people that end up paying big are the Pepsi Cola truck owners whose drivers run stop signs and push school buses into lakes and they should pay. But in your world if Pepsi doesn't want to have insurance they shouldn't be required to. You are all about shoveing the cost of health care onto all of us aren't you? Because when a person comes in with injuries that run up a bill of 50 or 100k the hospital has to provide care without knowing in advance if anyone has insurance and if they don't the cost is passed on to us. But you don't mind saddling everyone with that so long as you aren't inconvenienced.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:36 PM
You are the type of Libertarian that gives the rest of us a bad name. You don't want to be TOLD you have to have insurance to pay for injuries you cause in an accident if you were driving and talking on the phone but you DON'T mind that the hospital gets stuck with the bill that YOU cause through your negligence. That is the selfish libertarianism that costs society shit loads of money cause you don't want to be inconvenienced.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:36 PM
Most people have a 50/100 policy. If I sue the persons insurance and get a max damages award of policy limits I get 15k tops and my client get 35k. Hardly a winfall. The people that end up paying big are the Pepsi Cola truck owners whose drivers run stop signs and push school buses into lakes and they should pay. But in your world if Pepsi doesn't want to have insurance they shouldn't be required to. You are all about shoveing the cost of health care onto all of us aren't you? Because when a person comes in with injuries that run up a bill of 50 or 100k the hospital has to provide care without knowing in advance if anyone has insurance and if they don't the cost is passed on to us. But you don't mind saddling everyone with that so long as you aren't inconvenienced.

If Pepsi doesn't want insurance, then they risk losing millions of their own assets instead of Lloyds of London's.

Pepsi would lose assets, they would still have a judgement but they wouldn't be insured.

In other words, Pepsico would be retarded not to have insurance.

Socrtease
01-22-2008, 10:39 PM
If Pepsi doesn't want insurance, then they risk losing millions of their own assets instead of Lloyds of London's.

Pepsi would lose assets, they would still have a judgement but they wouldn't be insured.

In other words, Pepsico would be retarded not to have insurance.And if YOU cause the same amount of damages but don't have insurance you have nothing I can take to pay the full amount so to bad so sad the rest of society can foot the bill for Beefy driving negligently. I mean if people didn't want to be maimed for life they should carry more insurance for Beefy's driving like a shithead. I hope you never get hit by someone that has no insurance and end up with 100k dollars in medical bills alone.

Beefy
01-22-2008, 10:44 PM
And if YOU cause the same amount of damages but don't have insurance you have nothing I can take to pay the full amount so to bad so sad the rest of society can foot the bill for Beefy driving negligently. I mean if people didn't want to be maimed for life they should carry more insurance for Beefy's driving like a shithead. I hope you never get hit by someone that has no insurance and end up with 100k dollars in medical bills alone.

So we should require everyone to have what minimum soc? What if I broadside a bus of kids drunk and the bills are $300 million over 50 years? Should I be required to have that much insurance?

FUCK THE POLICE
01-22-2008, 11:01 PM
So we should require everyone to have what minimum soc? What if I broadside a bus of kids drunk and the bills are $300 million over 50 years? Should I be required to have that much insurance?

Of course. How could that not logically follow from what we've been saying.

Because, at the extreme end of something, there is something ridiculous, it means the whole line of thought should be abandoned.

Think of libertarianism for instance. We should all abolish the government and then we'll get along and love one another. Perfectly logically consistent. There's no probablem with that rosy view of the world.

Beefy
01-23-2008, 03:11 AM
Of course. How could that not logically follow from what we've been saying.

Because, at the extreme end of something, there is something ridiculous, it means the whole line of thought should be abandoned.

Think of libertarianism for instance. We should all abolish the government and then we'll get along and love one another. Perfectly logically consistent. There's no probablem with that rosy view of the world.

People should be responsible for themselves, not everyone else.

Seriously, the world is hazardous, get insurance.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 06:38 AM
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?...... The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.

Onceler
01-23-2008, 06:41 AM
The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.


That's such a nice, unbiased way to put it. I would never be able to guess your political affinity from these characterizations.

Cancel7
01-23-2008, 06:42 AM
The "be consistent" argument fails when people buy into cute, meaningless labels. In this case neither issue is about "choice".

On abortion, Liberals want the freedom to live their lives unencumbered, even if it means killing an unborn child. Conservatives insist on personal responsibility and the sanctity of the innocent human life.

On School Choice, Liberals want the power to control the minds of our children in order to perpetuate liberalism. Conservatives see a failed system and turn to the free market system to fix it.

The idea that a party of war-mongers, including a developmentally stunted moron who likes to dress up and play soldier, hold human life in any sanctity, is laughable, or would be, if there weren't so many thousands of dead children in Iraq and elsewhere, killed by bombs cheered on by the "sanctity of life" crowd.

You fools are in for a big surprise someday. When you find out that God loves brown people too. Yeah, they're human.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 06:47 AM
That's such a nice, unbiased way to put it. I would never be able to guess your political affinity from these characterizations.
Thank you. :D

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 06:48 AM
The idea that a party of war-mongers, including a developmentally stunted moron who likes to dress up and play soldier, hold human life in any sanctity, is laughable, or would be, if there weren't so many thousands of dead children in Iraq and elsewhere, killed by bombs cheered on by the "sanctity of life" crowd.

You fools are in for a big surprise someday. When you find out that God loves brown people too. Yeah, they're human.

[insult detected] Ding ding! The Southern Man scores! :)

uscitizen
01-23-2008, 07:07 AM
Beefys boyfriend.

:)


jk

Hermes Thoth
01-23-2008, 07:08 AM
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.

And some try to limit choices for others if the choice threatens some aspect of an entrenched and powerful entity, like the teacher's union or satan himself.

LadyT
01-23-2008, 08:28 AM
I'm 110% with you on the check memo thing but most of what you have here Beefy is in regards to social and economic policies. Its not fair to compare the birth right of having dominion over your own body to things like taxes or any other governmental policy. If the argument was over limiting piercings or tattoos or something of that nature you'd have a point but dominion over one's body versus tax policies is like comparing apples to boats.

Socrtease
01-23-2008, 08:34 AM
People should be responsible for themselves, not everyone else.

Seriously, the world is hazardous, get insurance.Having insurance that covers injuries YOU cause to others IS being responsible for yourself. You don't want that. YOu want to be irresponsible and be able to harm people without having to compensate them for your negligence. That is the height of selfishness and irresponsibility. Thanks for making my point about one part of the libertarian movement. You are part of the "I should be able to do whatever I want" crowd. You have just forgotten the part where MOST libertarians say so long as I don't harm anyone else.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 08:42 AM
I'm 110% with you on the check memo thing but most of what you have here Beefy is in regards to social and economic policies. Its not fair to compare the birth right of having dominion over your own body to things like taxes or any other governmental policy. If the argument was over limiting piercings or tattoos or something of that nature you'd have a point but dominion over one's body versus tax policies is like comparing apples to boats.

Wow so now a living human fetus is equated to a tat. Amazing.

LadyT
01-23-2008, 08:49 AM
Wow so now a living human fetus is equated to a tat. Amazing.

I didn't say or imply that. You're being completely disingenuous.

uscitizen
01-23-2008, 09:13 AM
People should be responsible for themselves, not everyone else.

Seriously, the world is hazardous, get insurance.

People should be responsible for the results of their actions.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 09:35 AM
I didn't say or imply that. You're being completely disingenuous. Yes I was. It was completely unfair of me. I sincerely apologize.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 09:37 AM
People should be responsible for the results of their actions. Yes and if they have an unwanted pregnancy should not have another human pay for their mistake.

uscitizen
01-23-2008, 09:39 AM
I was referring to insurance coverage. But yes you are right on the personal responsibility on preganacy. On the abortion aspect, well now that is a different issue.
Kinda like securing oil supplies, negotion or invasion.

LadyT
01-23-2008, 09:41 AM
Yes I was. It was completely unfair of me. I sincerely apologize.

? I'm not used this. At this point during the conversation I typically have to go back and repost what I did earlier about 20 times in big font until we're all blue in the face.

was this sarcasm and i just totally missed it? Conservatives are never this reasonable.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 09:50 AM
? I'm not used this. At this point during the conversation I typically have to go back and repost what I did earlier about 20 times in big font until we're all blue in the face.

was this sarcasm and i just totally missed it? Conservatives are never this reasonable. Welcome to my world.

LadyT
01-23-2008, 09:51 AM
Interesting. I don't know if I like this world.

DamnYankee
01-23-2008, 09:58 AM
Interesting. I don't know if I like this world. Don't knock it until you've tried it. :clink:

uscitizen
01-23-2008, 10:27 AM
Umm that is kinda like jabbing a stick in my eye, I know I won't like it.
I guess bushies are just slow to catch on though.

Minister of Truth
01-23-2008, 06:09 PM
The idea that a party of war-mongers, including a developmentally stunted moron who likes to dress up and play soldier, hold human life in any sanctity, is laughable, or would be, if there weren't so many thousands of dead children in Iraq and elsewhere, killed by bombs cheered on by the "sanctity of life" crowd.

You fools are in for a big surprise someday. When you find out that God loves brown people too. Yeah, they're human.

Yes, God hates babies, so we must smite them for Him. Those Syrian/Saudi/Lebanese/Iranian/Jordanian freedom fighters in Iraq that are targeting innocent civilians seem to have real contempt for children. If you have a problem with that, then you should discuss it with them over tea and tell those brown freedom fighters why they are wrong/immoral.

I hope to be very surprised on the judgement day - that God would let such an obnoxious and lazy/weak/elitist/stupid guy in the gates. Its a work in progress. Not deliberately shooting myself in the foot (i.e. trying to give Him a good excuse to be angry) is just a start, and damn good sense.

theMAJORITY
01-24-2008, 12:29 AM
Live and let live beefy--remember? Some may say pro life is right side------but it is really liberial----liberials tell people what to do and how to live. A real libertarian would let the woman have the choice.

you sir--are not a real libertarian IMO.

DamnYankee
01-24-2008, 06:03 AM
Live and let live beefy--remember? Some may say pro life is right side------but it is really liberial----liberials tell people what to do and how to live. A real libertarian would let the woman have the choice.

you sir--are not a real libertarian IMO.
What post does this refer to?

BRUTALITOPS
01-24-2008, 07:22 PM
Dude, seriously, there are so many people out there who, if they sold all their assets, couldn't pay for the damages. Think about it. If someone comes and hits your kid, and your kid is left retarded for the rest of their life, you can't barely make up all that's been lost (financially) because they don't own enough to pay the settlement. People can't pay what they don't have. Mandatory insurance is the fairest way to do it. It is not a choice to rip other people off.

the trick is not to have someone pay you via a lawsuit but rather pay into your own separate retard insurance fund, so if a member of your family becomes retarded, you'll be ok.

BRUTALITOPS
01-24-2008, 07:31 PM
Ok Seriously. Example time.

Characters:

1) Beefy
2) Mr. Joe.

Beefy smashes into mr. joes car. Beefy does not have insurance.
Mr. Joe does have insurance, and as such his insurance company covers his own ass.

As a result, Mr. Joe gets paid by his own insurance company to help with his expenses.
If Mr. Joe wants more money, he sues Mr. Beefy.

Stupid Scenario: Mr. Joe goes to Beefy's insurance agent and collects money. He gets paid, but at the cost of less freedom for everyone because we are made to pay for shit we don't want.

Smart Scenario. Instead of going over to Beefy's side, Mr. Joe is protected by his very own insurance company. Mr. Beefy is shit out of luck because he doesn't have insurance for HIS car... but Mr. Beefy is still happy because he was able to make a free choice.

Beefy
01-24-2008, 07:47 PM
Ok Seriously. Example time.

Characters:

1) Beefy
2) Mr. Joe.

Beefy smashes into mr. joes car. Beefy does not have insurance.
Mr. Joe does have insurance, and as such his insurance company covers his own ass.

As a result, Mr. Joe gets paid by his own insurance company to help with his expenses.
If Mr. Joe wants more money, he sues Mr. Beefy.

Stupid Scenario: Mr. Joe goes to Beefy's insurance agent and collects money. He gets paid, but at the cost of less freedom for everyone because we are made to pay for shit we don't want.

Smart Scenario. Instead of going over to Beefy's side, Mr. Joe is protected by his very own insurance company. Mr. Beefy is shit out of luck because he doesn't have insurance for HIS car... but Mr. Beefy is still happy because he was able to make a free choice.

It doesn't surprise me that the lawyers wouldn't like such a scenario.

theMAJORITY
01-25-2008, 12:17 PM
? I'm not used this. At this point during the conversation I typically have to go back and repost what I did earlier about 20 times in big font until we're all blue in the face.

was this sarcasm and i just totally missed it? Conservatives are never this reasonable.

Name one liberial program that was responsible?

LadyT
01-25-2008, 12:38 PM
Name one liberial program that was responsible?

Do not call list.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-26-2008, 08:47 PM
the trick is not to have someone pay you via a lawsuit but rather pay into your own separate retard insurance fund, so if a member of your family becomes retarded, you'll be ok.

Of course. If someone damages you, you just should've had the forsight to pay your own damages. That sounds completely fair.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-26-2008, 08:48 PM
Ok Seriously. Example time.

Characters:

1) Beefy
2) Mr. Joe.

Beefy smashes into mr. joes car. Beefy does not have insurance.
Mr. Joe does have insurance, and as such his insurance company covers his own ass.

As a result, Mr. Joe gets paid by his own insurance company to help with his expenses.
If Mr. Joe wants more money, he sues Mr. Beefy.

Stupid Scenario: Mr. Joe goes to Beefy's insurance agent and collects money. He gets paid, but at the cost of less freedom for everyone because we are made to pay for shit we don't want.

Smart Scenario. Instead of going over to Beefy's side, Mr. Joe is protected by his very own insurance company. Mr. Beefy is shit out of luck because he doesn't have insurance for HIS car... but Mr. Beefy is still happy because he was able to make a free choice.

You're an idiot.

Stupid scenario: forcing people to pay for others faults.



If insurance weren't mandatory, people without much assets would have no reason to buy it, and people who had assets would be forced to pay for them. Let's use some common fucking sense here.

theMAJORITY
01-27-2008, 03:43 PM
Do not call list.

One that increases your (opps--you may not pay them) income taxes.

You know I am correct--and that is why you had such a liberial answer of evasion.

theMAJORITY
01-27-2008, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=Watermark;201621]You're an idiot.

Stupid scenario: forcing people to pay for others faults.
[QUOTE]


FLIP------FLOP.
Your core liberial philosophies do exactly that same thing.

Beefy
01-27-2008, 05:21 PM
Live and let live beefy--remember? Some may say pro life is right side------but it is really liberial----liberials tell people what to do and how to live. A real libertarian would let the woman have the choice.

you sir--are not a real libertarian IMO.

I am pro choice you idiot.

But I actually walk the walk. That was the point of the thread.

BRUTALITOPS
01-27-2008, 07:30 PM
Of course. If someone damages you, you just should've had the forsight to pay your own damages. That sounds completely fair.

what do you think flood insurance, earthquake insurance, fire insurance is, you retard? You have the forsight for these things so in the event something bad happens, you are covered, or you are screwed. It's how it works for any other protection basically.

BRUTALITOPS
01-27-2008, 07:32 PM
You're an idiot.

Stupid scenario: forcing people to pay for others faults.


You could still bring legal action dipshit. You do realize forcing me to buy insurance because we have already had so many car crashes in society is the same thing as "forcing me to pay for other people's faults" don't you?

FUCK THE POLICE
01-27-2008, 08:00 PM
You could still bring legal action dipshit. You do realize forcing me to buy insurance because we have already had so many car crashes in society is the same thing as "forcing me to pay for other people's faults" don't you?

You have a simplistic, idiotic view of life.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-27-2008, 08:03 PM
what do you think flood insurance, earthquake insurance, fire insurance is, you retard? You have the forsight for these things so in the event something bad happens, you are covered, or you are screwed. It's how it works for any other protection basically.

Except that they aren't only being irresponsible to themselves.

Hermes Thoth
01-28-2008, 05:36 AM
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.

Some pro-choicers are actually pro abortion because they've been conditioned to hate humanity by the nihilists in charge of our education system. They love trees instead. How noble.

CensoredRed
01-28-2008, 12:15 PM
I'm pro-choice I'm just agianst abortion.

But, can you be against abortion and still see that it is not your decision to make for another individual?

As with anything else. I am pro-choice. That does not mean that I condone certain actions. I just realize that I do not have infinite wisdom to presume to make other peoples' choices for them.

Minister of Truth
01-28-2008, 02:20 PM
Why must we subvert our natural rights (principles America was founded on) to something as obviously out of line with them as abortion? You don't get to choose when natural rights are at stake. Otherwise, what the hell are we doing outside of the Commonwealth?

DigitalDave
01-28-2008, 02:47 PM
I'm Pro-life. It isn't a serious choice to me when you have a beating heart and a living human being inside you, to decide to kill it so you aren't burdened with him/her.

Damocles
01-28-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm Pro-life. It isn't a serious choice to me when you have a beating heart and a living human being inside you, to decide to kill it so you aren't burdened with him/her.
No living creature should be sacrificed....

Timshel
01-28-2008, 04:43 PM
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.

I don't disagree, but I think the point is better made by pointing out where they are not pro choice on medical/health decisions. Illicit drugs, medical procedures they don't believe are safe/effective, outlawing stuff in foods (e.g., trans fat), trying to tax people out of smoking, helmet/seat belt laws, etc.

As far as auto insurance, this is relevant only because the government owns the roads and forcing people to have old age or medical insurance is not nearly the same.

If you want to drive your car around a big field that you own, that's your right and you are not required to have auto insurance, a license or registration, nor must you obey any traffic laws. But if you plan on going on government roads you have to have insurance and all the rest. If the roads were private it is probable private owners would require such things or they would charge you a service fee that included such costs.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 05:18 PM
But, can you be against abortion and still see that it is not your decision to make for another individual?

As with anything else. I am pro-choice. That does not mean that I condone certain actions. I just realize that I do not have infinite wisdom to presume to make other peoples' choices for them.

I'm not against abortion. Anyone who knew me would've realized that I was just being fascetious. Sorry for the confusion.

FUCK THE POLICE
01-28-2008, 05:20 PM
Why must we subvert our natural rights (principles America was founded on) to something as obviously out of line with them as abortion? You don't get to choose when natural rights are at stake. Otherwise, what the hell are we doing outside of the Commonwealth?

Why must we subvert our natural rights and restrict abortion and force women to carry to term against their own personal will at the point of a gun? Because you, in your infinite wisdom, believe in a ridiculously restricted definition of human life?

Minister of Truth
01-28-2008, 11:08 PM
Why must we subvert our natural rights and restrict abortion and force women to carry to term against their own personal will at the point of a gun? Because you, in your infinite wisdom, believe in a ridiculously restricted definition of human life?

Well, life does come first in the list... But fuck life. You know, I could easily sit back and say nothing (as it is, I am no activist) for these reasons:

-it doesn't directly affect ME
-I cannot be aborted
-I wasn't aborted, and therefore I no longer have a vested interest
-MY personal comfort level is very important to ME
-As long as I make a claim to supporting life, it should look good on MY spiritual resume

I just find myself very era-centric. Its 2008. WTH?

Minister of Truth
01-28-2008, 11:11 PM
But, can you be against abortion and still see that it is not your decision to make for another individual?

As with anything else. I am pro-choice. That does not mean that I condone certain actions. I just realize that I do not have infinite wisdom to presume to make other peoples' choices for them.

Not really, I don't think being able to say, "okay, I'm not a bad person, can we go now?" is very honorable. As a member of this society, I am just as guilty as you.