US authorities should keep their hands from my bank data !

[The Rabbi]

You'd probably be able to make better arguments if you were able to read. I never said that abortion was a crime in any state. I said it was de facto illegal in most states, and it is. The procedure has to be performed by a doctor and in many states, the licensing requirements to perform the procedure are so strict that there are only a handful of providers in the whole state that do it. In Mississippi, for example, there is only one provider in the whole state.

You wrote it was "de facto illegal". Illegal means doing the act is a crime. Perhaps a refresher course in the English language is in order.
But you could make the same argument about heart transplants. I guess those are "de facto illegal" in the U.S. as well.

Except that the laws governing the provision of abortion aren't based on any sort of medical guidelines. They're designed to deny access.

Are you channeling Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement, now?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi simply can't argue.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi simply can't argue.

with unsubstantiated statements. True. But no one else can either.

 

[Polk]

The Rabbi simply can't argue.

with unsubstantiated statements. True. But no one else can either.

It's not unsubstantiated. To expand on the Mississippi example:

06.01.05 - Today, women in Mississippi narrowly escaped a virtual ban on second trimester abortions in their state when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi declared a 2004 law unconstitutional. The law would have banned abortions after the first trimester from being performed in any facility other than licensed hospitals or ambulatory surgical facilities. But only one medical facility in the entire state, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, regularly provides second trimester abortions and, under the new law, such abortion clinics were ineligible for licensing.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee declared the law unconstitutional, recognizing that it does nothing to protect the health and safety of women who choose abortion despite the state legislature's claims.

Court Strikes Down Mississippi Abortion Law: Women in State Narrowly Escape Virtual Ban on Second Trimester Abortion | Center for Reproductive Rights

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi simply can't argue.

with unsubstantiated statements. True. But no one else can either.

It's not unsubstantiated. To expand on the Mississippi example:

06.01.05 - Today, women in Mississippi narrowly escaped a virtual ban on second trimester abortions in their state when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi declared a 2004 law unconstitutional. The law would have banned abortions after the first trimester from being performed in any facility other than licensed hospitals or ambulatory surgical facilities. But only one medical facility in the entire state, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, regularly provides second trimester abortions and, under the new law, such abortion clinics were ineligible for licensing.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee declared the law unconstitutional, recognizing that it does nothing to protect the health and safety of women who choose abortion despite the state legislature's claims.

Court Strikes Down Mississippi Abortion Law: Women in State Narrowly Escape Virtual Ban on Second Trimester Abortion | Center for Reproductive Rights

And your citations do not support your contention.
There were in fact 3041 abortions in MS in 2005. That is a lot of law breakers by your account.

 

[Polk]

with unsubstantiated statements. True. But no one else can either.

It's not unsubstantiated. To expand on the Mississippi example:

06.01.05 - Today, women in Mississippi narrowly escaped a virtual ban on second trimester abortions in their state when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi declared a 2004 law unconstitutional. The law would have banned abortions after the first trimester from being performed in any facility other than licensed hospitals or ambulatory surgical facilities. But only one medical facility in the entire state, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, regularly provides second trimester abortions and, under the new law, such abortion clinics were ineligible for licensing.

U.S. District Judge Tom Lee declared the law unconstitutional, recognizing that it does nothing to protect the health and safety of women who choose abortion despite the state legislature's claims.

Court Strikes Down Mississippi Abortion Law: Women in State Narrowly Escape Virtual Ban on Second Trimester Abortion | Center for Reproductive Rights

And your citations do not support your contention.
There were in fact 3041 abortions in MS in 2005. That is a lot of law breakers by your account.

Are you this stupid in real life, or is it just an act for the audience here? I never said that abortion was banned. I said that the laws in place make difficult to obtain legally.

That 3,041 abortions were performed in 2005 actually makes my case stronger. Mississippi is 31st in the nation in terms of population. The next two largest states are Connecticut and Iowa. The next two smallest are Arkansas and Kansas.

Let's take a look at the number of abortions performed in 2005 in each of these states:
Connecticut: 12,110
Iowa: 5,881
Mississippi: 3,041
Arkansas: 4,695
Kansas: 10,462

The states closest in number of abortions to Mississippi? Nebraska and Maine, whose combined population is about the same size as Mississippi's.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you lie in real life too?
Your exact words were "de facto illegal." Illegal means people can get charged and punished for doing something. Obviously no one is getting charged and punished with abortion in MS. And the low incidence of abortion in MS can be attributed to lots of things, starting with the unwillingness fo the religious population there to kill little babies.

 

[Toronado3800]

How is that in any way a refutation of the notion that taxation is a forced contribution?
And what percentage of tax money goes to things that people commonly use, like roads, and how much to things that most people do not use, like WIC?

Oh no, not that I couldn't refute the fact, just I was on ebay hunting down ratchets then reading up on new editions of old board games.

Are you talking about taxation being contribution by force? Sure, I'll agree some folks are FORCED to pay taxes to support all kinds of things they don't like. The Gulf War, paying down the Reagan deficit, WIC, the Civilian Conservation Corps projects, police salaries, fire protection, all kinds of things the state forces on us.

Some folks go vote, then pay taxes grudgingly figuring their officials were elected and this is the type of representative government the U.S. has / we voted for.

If the fact I need to hunt down is how much of your taxes go to road construction then it would be a blend largely of whatever fuel taxes your state charges then federal aid thrown on top of it. You would think if folks were that upset by and large with the trade of tax dollars for roads they'd vote differently.

Now I boycott the malls built with welfare money in the flood prone areas around here. Do libertarians who don't believe in big government roads being forced on us boycott I-70 or do they just swallow that pride and get on the highway or dial 9-11 and use a tax subsidized ambulance when its time to go to the hospital?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paying taxes is part of the social compact, part of the American agreement from the very, very beginning. Those who have trouble with taxes should be more involved in their local governments to start with. To suggest that taxation per se is somehow immoral is a losing premise from the get to.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paying taxes is part of the social compact, part of the American agreement from the very, very beginning. Those who have trouble with taxes should be more involved in their local governments to start with. To suggest that taxation per se is somehow immoral is a losing premise from the get to.

Slavery was a part of the social compact from the very beginning as well, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that it was an immoral system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paying taxes is part of the social compact, part of the American agreement from the very, very beginning. Those who have trouble with taxes should be more involved in their local governments to start with. To suggest that taxation per se is somehow immoral is a losing premise from the get to.

Slavery was a part of the social compact from the very beginning as well, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that it was an immoral system.

KK, that is a false analogy, but I appreciate your attempt.

 

[Douger]

But you live with a government which represents the will of the people. How can you be against the will of the people??
Besides, if you have nothing to hide then it isn't a problem. Right??

So, if you have nothing to hide either, you certainly welcome any search of your private property without any warrant. This is the most stupid remark I know.
With that sentence anything can be justified.
You are against the Patriot act ? Aren´t you a patriot ?
You are against our anti-terror laws ? So you support terror ?
This kind of logic justifies any restriction of citizen rights.

No, the problem is that it is not my government sniffing around in my banking data, but a foreign government. In Germany I can let this control by a court or even sue my government for ignoring my basic rights. But in this case no german court can be adressed. And a US court neither, as they are not responsible.
So, in this case all sides found a nice way to bypass my constitutional rights and this I do not like.

Imagine your government would hand out your private data to Germany or Spain, without any justification, supervision or control by a US court. And in case the Germans find something interesting, US agencies will thankfully use it. But as the source is not under US jurisdiction you can neither counter check or even question it.

So, under the umbrella of the War against Terror again our rights are restricted.
I see this not as progress.

regards
ze germanguy

Welcome to the New World Order, German Guy.

Since living in the UK, I can't beleive the number of times I have heard Brits say 'if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem'. They may not see the problem, but I guess they are so used to their government telling them what do to that they are quickly losing the ability to think for themselves.

I'm hoping to live in Germnay in a couple of years time.... It's an interesting country I think.... I just wish Europeans generally were a little less accepting of their governments trampling over their citizens.

History ALWAYS repeats.
This time around their will be no rescue for their obnoxious ignorance.

 

[Polk]

Do you lie in real life too?
Your exact words were "de facto illegal." Illegal means people can get charged and punished for doing something. Obviously no one is getting charged and punished with abortion in MS. And the low incidence of abortion in MS can be attributed to lots of things, starting with the unwillingness fo the religious population there to kill little babies.

I've asked you before and will do so again now? Are you really this dumb or is it a cute little game?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Paying taxes is part of the social compact, part of the American agreement from the very, very beginning. Those who have trouble with taxes should be more involved in their local governments to start with. To suggest that taxation per se is somehow immoral is a losing premise from the get to.

Slavery was a part of the social compact from the very beginning as well, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that it was an immoral system.

KK, that is a false analogy, but I appreciate your attempt.

It's actually quite a good analogy. You see you were saying that taxation couldn't possibly be immoral because it was a part of our social compact from the very beginning. I simply pointed out that another system that was a part of our social compact from the very beginning is largely considered immoral today, therefore rendering your point baseless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

So essentially your point is that taxation is not immoral because you say it isn't. Well my only response is that I find all forms of theft immoral, and I give no special deference to the government in this respect.

 

[Alvin]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

So essentially your point is that taxation is not immoral because you say it isn't. Well my only response is that I find all forms of theft immoral, and I give no special deference to the government in this respect.

It's not theft. It's Dues.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

So essentially your point is that taxation is not immoral because you say it isn't. Well my only response is that I find all forms of theft immoral, and I give no special deference to the government in this respect.

Read the Constitution, friend. Taxation in the American social compact is not immoral, nor is it "theft". What a loony statement by you.

Don't misquote me, KK. You have done that in other thread and ended up looking like a loon.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

So essentially your point is that taxation is not immoral because you say it isn't. Well my only response is that I find all forms of theft immoral, and I give no special deference to the government in this respect.

It's not theft. It's Dues.....

Dues for them to do all the unconstitutional and illegal things they do in my name? I'd prefer they didn't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ah, but where slavery is intrinsically immoral, taxation has no such inherent wrongness to it in our social compact. So, yes, your analogy is false.

So essentially your point is that taxation is not immoral because you say it isn't. Well my only response is that I find all forms of theft immoral, and I give no special deference to the government in this respect.

Read the Constitution, friend. Taxation in the American social compact is not immoral, nor is it "theft". What a loony statement by you.

Don't misquote me, KK. You have done that in other thread and ended up looking like a loon.

I suggest you read the Constitution, slavery is not immoral in there either.

There's been no misquoting, your point is very clear. You have no argument so your only argument essentially boils down to "Nuh uh."