On 05-28-13, BOB KLAHN said to JEFF BINKLEY:   
      
      
   BK>>   Since I am a pro-life Catholic, all abortions are atrocities to   
   BK>>   me. Since I am a pro-life Catholic, letting that child die for   
   BK>>   lack or medical care, or nutrition, or a safe and warm home, or   
   BK>>   suffer for lack of any of the above is an atrocity to me.   
      
      
   Ah.....you're *Catholic*. So then...you are a believer in no physical   
   relations prior to marriage. Which means there aren't any `out-of-wedlock'   
   pregnancies to begin with.   
      
      
   And (you've CLAIMED in the past) you are also for personal responsibility,   
   which includes self-sufficiency. People taking responsibility for themselves   
   and their actions.   
      
      
   Where does anyone get the notion that we (the taxpayers) owe anything to a   
   woman who won't either abstain from risky sexual behavior she knows may very   
   well cause a pregnancy, or at least supply herself with the readily-available   
   means of pregnancy prevention that can be had over-the-counter?   
      
      
   If she couldn't be responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy....why does the   
   taxpayer become responsible for a situation SHE didn't have the responsibility   
   to prevent in the first p[lace! And by the way....women don't impregnate   
   themselves. Where the `father' of this out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Why is the   
   taxpayer's financial responsibilty greater than his? If a woman wants to   
   engage in un-wedded physical relations and can't afford the preventive...why   
   doesn't her partner provide it? I don't see the taxpayers suddenly being   
   conferred with responsibility automatically, because neither the mother NOR   
   the father had the intellect to consider the possible consequences of what   
   they were doing. At what point does the taxpayers' financial responsibility   
   come into play?   
      
      
   JB> Then you have the right to take every dime you earn and give it to   
   JB> your Catholic Church to solve the problem. You should not think   
   JB> because you think you and your church have the moral high ground, you   
   JB> any right to my money, including money I am forced to pay to the   
   JB> governments, claiming control over me.   
      
      
   BK>Which means you are an anarchist, since you seem to think you   
   BK>shouldn't have to pay anything to the government.   
      
      
   No such thing. Its like a person owning a house and property they pay taxes on   
   every year, also having to pay the taxes on their neighbor's house and   
   property because that neighbor didn't have the personal responsibity to make   
   sure they could afford the on-going costs when they made the purchase in the   
   first place.   
      
      
   BK>When your president took this country into a war for oil and   
   BK>votes he spent my money to cause the deaths of an estimated   
   BK>100,000 innocent people directly, and an unknown but ever   
   BK>larger number indirectly.   
      
      
   Leaving aside the silliness about the `oil and votes' (neither was involved.   
   Iraq's oil doesn't benefit this country today any more than it did back then,   
   and the votes went to the opposite party, or are you forgetting the house went   
   democrat AFTER the Iraq invasion?), your indignation over `war' has a false   
   note to it. A mere trifle of your sophistic attempt to `blame the other guy'.   
      
      
   I was not very comfortable with the invasion of Iraq, as I imagine many other   
   conservative-minded people weren't.   
      
      
   My thoughts all along were that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan,   
   and taking the Taliban to task until they themselves gave bin Laden up to   
   American justice.   
      
      
   And by `taking the Taliban to task' I mean we should have pounded them with   
   ordnance until they gave bin Laden up. Starting with a day and hour we knew   
   their government would be in session, being visited by a series of missiles   
   armed with high explosives. The idea being to take out their entire   
   government, or as many as were present in their parliament or whatever   
   equivalent they have. Make the statement as G.W. Bush did that, `you will   
   either give him up...or you will share his fate'....give a reasonable length   
   of time to allow compliance (about a month), and if no compliance is met take   
   out their whole government with a couple of missiles. And do a repeat every   
   time their government is discovered to have a meeting set to take place.   
      
      
   Not one single American troop should have set foot in Afghanistan. Thats what   
   cruise missiles are for.   
      
      
   And before you crank up your false outrage and your false accusations of `how   
   pitiless I am'....the blood of over three thousand innocent people cry from   
   the grave for vengeance. My thoughts are more with those innocents and will   
   not be wasted on any of your false claims of outrage.   
      
      
   BK>You didn't seem to have a problem with   
   BK>that, so I'll do my best not to worry about how you feel about   
   BK>your money going to support the poor and the helpless and esp   
   BK>the infants who are without medical care and adequate nutrition   
   BK>without the government policies.   
      
      
   Those are buzz-words and feel-good notions from out of thin air. The   
   government exercises confiscatory tax power, and instead of using that money   
   for the actual `common good'...the `common defense'...they spread it into   
   areas it was never intended. The words "....to promote the general welfare..."   
   had nothing whatever to do with giving people a regular income to sit home and   
   do nothing year after year. Those words were intended to cover things like   
   defense, infrastructure....etc etc, and did not even imply `give-aways' the   
   politicians applied them as. (One politician recently made the suggestion that   
   people on the InterNet aren't covered by the First Amendment).   
      
      
   The skewed view of the Constitution came under a liberal interpretation of   
   that document that would have the Founders turning in their graves! That   
   document is the basis on which the majority of our law and governance is   
   built. It has become distorted and stretched to a point of almost being   
   meaningless. Which is probably why the present occupant of the White House   
   ignores it so often.   
      
      
   BK>Yes, I claim the right to demand the government provide for the   
   BK>poor and the helpless, under the basic social contract. You can   
   BK>always move to somewhere like Saudi Arabia where the rich get it   
   BK>all, or even more so Bangladesh where life is cheap.   
      
      
   On the other hand (and far more preferable) YOU could move to a place where   
   taxes on those who work hard and succeed are almost 100% of what they earn   
   (notice the word *earn*), all the `freebies' that are so dear to your heart   
   are a reality, and utopia reigns supreme! Hmmm.....like England, France,   
   Greece....   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)