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.
Billy, that is bullshit.As I have stated ad infinitum, Communism is a catch-all term used for all things Marxist/socialist. It has been so since the 1960s.
Shrug. If you say so.
No, I dont define the meaning of English words, dude.
That is because most and the most vocal pro-life people are Roman Catholics and they also tend to support a ban on contraceptives. But the story is a bit more complex than that as about 80% of Roman Catholics use contraceptives and would oppose their own pro-life members in making it illegal while they silently support their pro-life anti-abortion activities.Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
As a general rule I find that the most anti-choice on the right are also the most opposed to contraception and sex Ed and programs geared to helping single mothers.
I suspect though I'm not sure, but I may notice it more than you.
Read their posts. It almost always ends with some angry nasty man calling women "sluts".
I am not taking offense because you offend liberals, not at all.Nor do I, but they are in part my business, and having lived through the above-noted period I am well aware of the common usage.
This is an interesting fight you've chosen. Our resident Democrats take offense at being called out, and make the same denial as to definition. Why are you taking similar offense with them?
I fail to see what point you are trying make about conservatives, other than just trying to berate them.
Are conservatives preventing you or anyone else from helping those in need? No, they aren't. So don't lay the blame on conservatives for the situation poor people are in.
We all know what you are really talking about- thieving. You're talking about the left's desire to tax the shit out of the middle class in order to redistribute wealth to "the poor". The poor being lazy bums that are already collecting welfare checks. I don't see any starving people in the US, so your definition of poor and desperation is way off. If you want to see actual starving people you'll need to travel to places like Africa. Even the poorest people in the US have it a hundred times better than people living in squalor in war-torn, third world shitholes.
Yes, there are starving people in the US, as in they go to bed hungry at night and are not sure of where there next meal is coming from. Just because some starve worse doesnt make the starvation here OK, dimwit.
Show us these "starving" people in America. How many people have died of starvation?
People being hungry because they can't afford to stuff their faces with all the sugary shit they want isn't starving.
That is because most and the most vocal pro-life people are Roman Catholics and they also tend to support a ban on contraceptives. But the story is a bit more complex than that as about 80% of Roman Catholics use contraceptives and would oppose their own pro-life members in making it illegal while they silently support their pro-life anti-abortion activities.Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
As a general rule I find that the most anti-choice on the right are also the most opposed to contraception and sex Ed and programs geared to helping single mothers.
I suspect though I'm not sure, but I may notice it more than you.
Read their posts. It almost always ends with some angry nasty man calling women "sluts".
There are a lot of neocon pro-lifers but it strikes me as more of a political ploy than a heart felt resolution.
I am not taking offense because you offend liberals, not at all.Nor do I, but they are in part my business, and having lived through the above-noted period I am well aware of the common usage.
This is an interesting fight you've chosen. Our resident Democrats take offense at being called out, and make the same denial as to definition. Why are you taking similar offense with them?
I simply take offense at the misuse of our language and the words that largely compose it.
NYC is 68% catholic. most of the catholics i know are pro contraception and pro choice.
it tends to be the evangelicals who are loudest.
and i stand by what i said about the anti-choice mob.
Show us these "starving" people in America. How many people have died of starvation?
Dying from starvation is one of many factors that cause death due to exposure, illness, etc. Lack of food causes lower resistance to could and disease.
So how many people die of ONLY starvation. Who knows, but many die of exposure and common disease because they have little access to food and frequent periods when they cannot eat.
People being hungry because they can't afford to stuff their faces with all the sugary shit they want isn't starving.
You are an ignorant wretch. Go do you happy dance at the thought of other Americans suffering from lack of food, you evil fucktard.
- 1 in 6 people in America face hunger.
- The USDA defines "food insecurity" as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for all household members. In 2011, households with children reported a significantly higher food insecurity rate than households without children: 20.6% vs. 12.2%.
- Food insecurity exists in every county in America. In 2013, 17.5 million households were food insecure. More and more people are relying on food banks and pantries. Collect food outside your local supermarket for a local food bank. Sign up for Supermarket Stakeout.
- 49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table.
- In the US, hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food, but rather the continued prevalence of poverty.
11 Facts About Hunger in the US | DoSomething.org | Volunteer for Social Change
Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
Real Conservatism is the defenders of Western civilization, not those who simply give knee jerk reactions to change or who denounce any impediment for corporations auctioning off the last resources of our country.
And consistent with that is the concept of Charity. Christian Western Europe long held Charity to be a good thing and defended it, and in a time of monarchies, this always meant the government paid for the charity.
Now I know many good conservatives who say 'Of Course!' when we discuss whether we should use tax money to tend for the most fortunate in our society and who realize that the urbanization of the majority of our population means that there is no natural safety net any more. The government has to step up and share the load.
But I keep hearing people say that welfare is socialism or that unemployment insurance is socialism or that social security is, etc. But this is not factual and meant as rhetorical broilerplate for the general movement.
The fact is that our Savior Jesus Christ said that 'As you care for the least of these, so you cared for Me.' And the First Century Church was the model for communist communities all over America in the mid 19th century so successful that secularists like Robert Owen tried to emulate them with no success.
I have a cat named 'Snips' and he is a very old cat. He is 17 years old to be exact. He is a pain in the ass as he catterwalls all the time, forgets to use his cat box, is afraid to eat by himself and caterwauls for someone to sit by him as he eats his food, etc. We are paying for three sets of medications for the stupid ball of fur, and yet I love him and will do anything to take care of him.
Why? Not because I see a single use for him at all or because he has some value as a pet. My wife loves him and would be crushed should he die and she loves to see him cared for. So I care for him and go downstairs to sit by him and let him eat.
Maybe I love him, but I dont see it. It is just the decent thing to do.
Dont our fellow human beings that are citizens in our Republic not justify similar care? Are they not a great deal more than just a pet? I think most agree with me on this, and Conservatism will have a long and desolate road ahead if they do not face the reality that there is no virtue to leaving people to die, or starve or have lives of desperation and insecurity.
We need to be bigger and better than that.
Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
Who on the right has ever said "let the poor starve"? Traditional conservatives believe in charity, and charities are doing a fine job helping to feed the poor.
Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
Who on the right has ever said "let the poor starve"? Traditional conservatives believe in charity, and charities are doing a fine job helping to feed the poor.
What about "let them die?"
Debate Crowd Cheers for Letting Uninsured Die
Lol, 'compassionate conservatism' that draws on the moral and cultural values of the Christian West does not a RINO make.Welcome to RINO-land.
Yeah, there are some soulless wack jobs among Tea Party people, but they are not typical of them, from all the ones I have known.Those on the right who want to save the lives of unborn babies are not the same one on the right who say let the poor starve and insist that there isno hunger in America. The first groups is traditional genuine conservatism, the second is a neocon Corporate Crony slime ball.no one wants to kill children.
but the rabid right is pro birth and then says f'em.
Who on the right has ever said "let the poor starve"? Traditional conservatives believe in charity, and charities are doing a fine job helping to feed the poor.
What about "let them die?"
Debate Crowd Cheers for Letting Uninsured Die
