Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Last time I checked, individuals were free to comment and express their opinions on issues without running them by you first. All issues of law and politics are public knowledge. Nice try at deflecting the topic, however.
You can be as pro-choice as you like, but that choice does not mean the rest of us should have to pay for it. Abortion on demand is a poor method of birth control that does not encourage an arguably more important reason to have protected sex - preventing the spread of STDs. If in the event of a pregnancy a free abortion is guaranteed, there is no incentive to change your ways if that option is always available, especially when compared to other options that must be paid out of pocket (such as various contraceptive pills).
And the eduction subsidy/scholarship program was (IIRC) a voucher program for parents whose children attended public schools that were failing. The argument against it was smarter children would always be the ones mostly likely withdrawn and sent to a private school, making the failing school even worse off. The argument for it is smarter students would be held back considerably by a school that did not fit their needs, which would cost them a possible scholarship or higher education opportunities in the future.
Eh....you try to talk logic with ME?!??!?!?!?
I am coming over to waterboard you for CHRISTMAS! ;-)
Instead of agreeing that these are screwed up priorities, by virtue of silence, liberals do in fact agree that this money is well spent and low-income children don't deserve any help? Because all i've heard so far is nonsense about "home rule" and "butting out" and "conservatives hate socialism."
Instead of agreeing that these are screwed up priorities, by virtue of silence, liberals do in fact agree that this money is well spent and low-income children don't deserve any help? Because all i've heard so far is nonsense about "home rule" and "butting out" and "conservatives hate socialism."
You are the best individual argument for preserving a woman's right to abortion.
By suggesting that liberals don't support education and conservatives do you weren't thinking at all.
History shouts otherwise.
Does it?
So how do you explain the decision to cancel the scholarship program for low-income kids while funding needles and abortions? Is that the education that you're referring to? Because nary a book or teacher is needed in the latter.
Would you also disagree that pro-union Democrats sided with the NEA to get rid of the program? (NEA = National Education Association)
Sounds to me that you're in a conundrum trying to explain this away via political hackery. But i'll be more than happy to read your forthcoming response.
The more I think about this issue, the harder I laugh. I really can't recall the last time conservatives gave a flippin rip about Washington DC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.