Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.
Go back and read what I wrote. I clearly stated that I neither approved or disapproved.
By your writing, you are a liar. Go back and clean this up.
Clean what up? I asked a simple question. Answer it to prove me wrong or admit I am right.
What you are asking does not redefine progressivism as a political tool of reform used by all parties, from right to left, to use big government to make social, government, cultural, and or economic change.
That is the point.
You can't change the truth.
In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.
So on this one issue, I guess Democrats are against Education? I mean that is all this is. making sure they make an Informed Decision. Just from my own Experience alone with 2 kids, I wager more than a handful of Women thinking about Abortion, Choose Adoption or keeping the kid after actually seeing it in the womb. Especially the further along ones.
Once you see what is with out a Doubt, a little person, with hands and feet and a thumb to suck, it's harder to terminate it.
What is so wrong, with some women changing their minds and choosing not to abort?
And why are so many on the left so unwilling to compromise? This Law does nothing at all to stop a woman right to Abortion. It's simply a compromise, an attempt to at least make sure they are fully aware of what they are doing.
What you are asking does not redefine progressivism as a political tool of reform used by all parties, from right to left, to use big government to make social, government, cultural, and or economic change.
That is the point.
You can't change the truth.
In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.
Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.
Wow, women fully informed about a potentially life changing decision. What a concept. No wonder left wingers are against it.
unless you are a moron, most people understand the concept of what a fetus is...I mean you can all try to play up the whole information angle, but we are not that stupid.
Yes, a 15 yr old is fully aware…
Go back and read what I wrote. I clearly stated that I neither approved or disapproved.
By your writing, you are a liar. Go back and clean this up.
Clean what up? I asked a simple question. Answer it to prove me wrong or admit I am right.
You asked a question to which, based on what I have written, has no answer, then you answered it for me. That is unethical. I neither approve nor disapprove. I have merely properly defined "progressivism" and classified "statism". Those definitions are what you have to work with, nothing else.
What you are asking does not redefine progressivism as a political tool of reform used by all parties, from right to left, to use big government to make social, government, cultural, and or economic change.
That is the point.
You can't change the truth.
In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.
Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.
In other words, you personally support the government interfering in patient decisions as long as it is something you feel is morally justified. That, by your definition, makes you a statist, glad to see you finally admit it.
Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.
My point. QPW is arguing that I am statist, when I have merely defined "progressivism" and "statism" for him. I believe he is irked that one can be of the progressive right-wing and a statist.
Clean what up? I asked a simple question. Answer it to prove me wrong or admit I am right.
You asked a question to which, based on what I have written, has no answer, then you answered it for me. That is unethical. I neither approve nor disapprove. I have merely properly defined "progressivism" and classified "statism". Those definitions are what you have to work with, nothing else.
I did not answer for you, I pointed out the logical conclusion from your posts. All you have to do to prove me wrong is speak up and say you oppose the government getting involved in decisions between patients and doctors that involve prescription medicine. Instead of doing that you continuously mount personal attack.
That makes you a statist by your definition. Everyone here already knows that, so I just thanked you for finally admitting it.
Ironic, because banning abortion is about as statist as it gets.
My point. QPW is arguing that I am statist, when I have merely defined "progressivism" and "statism" for him. I believe he is irked that one can be of the progressive right-wing and a statist.
You are a statist, I am just using your definition to prove it.
My point. QPW is arguing that I am statist, when I have merely defined "progressivism" and "statism" for him. I believe he is irked that one can be of the progressive right-wing and a statist.
You are a statist, I am just using your definition to prove it.
You can't is the point because I stated I neither approved nor disapproved.
The most you can say is that you are not sure whether I am a statist.
We can say you are, based on your writing, a right wing progressive statist.
I don't have to disprove anything because that was not my point. You, however, based on what you have written are undoubtedly a big government statist.
The most you can say is that you are not sure whether I am a statist.
The most you can say is that you are not sure whether I am a statist.
Theres no such thing as a statist, its an inane, made-up word by the right.
Your point is based on nothing I have said. Your inference is then based on nothing. Fail.
And fail for lying in the first place, stating I said something I did not, then try to hide behind you "inferred" it.
The most you can say is that you are not sure whether I am a statist.
There’s no such thing as a ‘statist,’ it’s an inane, made-up word by the right.
Really? You might want to tell Merriam Webster that someone hacked their dictionary.
Statist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
