Posted on 11/30/2010 8:30:25 AM PST by ZGuy
I oppose slavery.
I oppose infanticide.
Feminists want daddy on the hook for 18 years of child support payments for a baby “he doesn't want” yet mama can kill the baby she doesn't want “just because”. The “my body” argument doesn't hold water. Barack Obama protected infanticide of babies that survived an abortion attempt and were live outside of the womb and off the umbilical cord. Also, “my body” ends at that cord. There may be one,two, or more babies EACH OF WHOM IS AN INDIVIDUAL.
Killing babies shouldn't make anyone feel “good” but there are proud abortionists and mothers who killed their babies and college chicks who find it “empowering” to hold the personal authority to kill your own kids.
Feel good would be “the babies deserve to be free and protected from abuse”. They didn't ask to be spawned, that was the acts of mama and dada.
If there have been 50 million rapes since 1973 in America, we need to combat rape, not legalize abortion in defense of rapists (who don't see prosecution when Planned Parenthood refuses to notify authorities of underage pregnancies).
Good stuff, ‘ll take your thought a little further.
I recently read a good way to evaluate everything that the government does. Understanding that taxation is the government taking something away from someone under the threat of force, anytime the government asks for money, look at where it is going. If the recipient would go to jail for using force to take the same thing away from you, then it is largess, and thus unConstitutional, and un-Christian to boot, in ever sense of the word.
... with the necessary corollary: "... after skimming off a comfortable slice of your tithe for the government's own functionaries, apparatchiks, and nomenklatura."
This. Must. Be. Stopped.
“There are people in this country who struggle to put food on the table or can’t afford medical care. A civilized society would try to help them, instead of leaving them to fend for themselves. (Someday, the one who needs a helping hand may be you, or someone you love.)”
Anyone who says that the government is is best, or even capable of providing the “help” is either stupid or lying.
There were other organizations one could join (like the Masons or Oddfellows) who would also provide “insurance” for you if you became unemployed and even job contacts for employment (they would change the handshakes to make sure you were current on your dues and not just some grifter looking for a free ride handout). Those same organizations would provide funds for orphanages and other private institutions needing assistance.
When it comes to “accountable” organizations, Salvation Army seems to get a good recommendation on money actually going to help people rather than being swallowed up in administrative and fundraising costs.
Bill Clinton’s retroactive tax increase should have been ruled unconstitutional.
It changed “existing law” after the fact.
On the social safety net.
The conservative view is to give a hand up while the liberal view is to give a hand out.
I have no problem with a welfare system per-se. If someone finds themselves in dire straights, a little short-term help is fine, provided the person being helped is working to improve their situation.
Conservatives believe in SUBSIDIARITY. If an individual cannot solve his own problem, he should first go to his family, if his family cannot help, he should go to his friends, then to his church, then to other charities, perhaps to private businesses willing to help, then to the most local of governments, then the next level of government, and up the ladder. There are very, very few problems that the individual cannot solve well before one must ask for help from the federal government. This is common sense. It is also the most efficient, equitable and loving way for a community to act.
Outstanding quote. Thanks for posting
I read it on FR and added it to my profile page for quick reference. I like that it exists far back enough in history that those who point to “republicanism” and “changing attitudes” have no retort to it.
Same as it ever was.
I wonder what liberal red diaper doper baby parents say when someone brings up Aesop’s fables, such as the Ants and the Grasshopper.
The other day, Neil Boortz took a call from a lady who wanted to get one book for her liberal son that may get him to see the light. He recommended The Law. I may have to get my own copy.
You may not know how right you are. I live near a very liberal community and can tell you from first hand experience that the ideas of communication, or tolerance are only facades to hide the nastiness inside.
Don’t by that edition of the book. Quite ironic that a communist propagandist like Shepherd Fairey (artist behind the Obama HOPE-Obey posters) was hired to do the latest paperback edition cover of a resolutely ANTI-Communist novel.
And yeah, Ralph Steadman's a lib too but he didn't create artworks like these and post them up on public property from coast to coast:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.