caring for babies who survive abortion

[Nebe]

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

i care about the quality of education. you care about how much money we spend on education. they aren’t the same thing.

When you can show me data that suggests students perform better when teachers have cadillac pensions instead of modest pensions, ill
be convinced. But there is no data that comes close to suggesting that.

my kids catholic middle school spends $5,500 per kid. In the city of hartford, they spend more than $19,000 per kid. Where do you suppose the better education is?

When democrats start to actually care about education ( instead of caring about enriching teachers unions), they’ll support school choice.

Jim stop moving the goal post this is thread is about your topic . Not you fan favorites conservatives give more or bashing teachers retirement benefits and school choice

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

But the gop wanting to cut social welfare benefits actually supports Nebe comment

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Have zero support to counter what Nebe said “But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

t

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have all the support in the world to counter that.

The data shows that conservatives are as charitable as liberals (slightly more so, actually), in terms of donating time or money to charity.

Here, the right wing nuts at the New York Times, publish the results of a study that destroys the argument that you and Nebe attempted to make.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

Go ahead wayne, tell us I still have zero support to counter what you guys said.

"we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.”

Right. The side that gives more money to charity, which advocates for traditional family values because every study shows that's what's best for kids, the side that advocates for school choice, that side doesn't care about children.

Is there any chance you can answer the question that's relevant to this topic? When do you believe a baby becomes a human being? Because Nancy Pelosi says it's still not a person, immediately after birth. She explicitly said it's life is still up to the mom to choose.

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

conservatives are charitable

Jim please show us all how this charity has anything to do with or is attached to helping single mothers who choose not to have an abortion or support babies a born and put up for adoption .

opinion’s are not evidence unless you support the writer’s views

your link is just someone’s opinion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, you’re saying you don’t believe that conservatives give to charities that help poor single
mothers. You’re exactly right wayne, we give to charities that help rich married couples.

you are not persuadable by facts.

“opinions are not evidence”

right! you never so out opinions without evidence, you never agree with the opinions of your fellow liberals i less they provide hard facts.

nene provided no evidence that conservatives don’t care about others welfare. but you agreed with him. you don’t say “show
me the evidence.”

you are hysterical. just google “catholic adoption services” and you’ll see catholic charities that help the exact women you mention.

good grief.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

and if data didn’t show that conservatives are just as charitable as liberals, just as likely to donate money and time to charity, you’d have a point. since the data does show conservatives are no less charitable ( actually slightly more charitable), you have no point.

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally.

"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. "

He also said something else, it was actually his first sentence. And you missed it totally. I didn't miss anything.


"Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth."Love the fetus, could care less about the baby.

The tired, intellectually-bankrupt bumper sticker that says conservatives care about people until they are born. It's simple, it's catchy, it demonizes your opposition. Unfortunately, it's also stupid and demonstrably false. But your side keeps bleating it like good little sheep.Funny, go back and read thousands upon thousands of your posts. You demonize everyone you disagree with.
Look at the words you call people here.

"Raise minimum wage to a living wage"

Stupid. Obviously, not every job is meant to provide a living wage that someone can support himself, or a family on. For gods sake Paul, go to your local pub or pizzeria, and tell the owner that you'd like him to pay his busboys and cashiers a wage that can support an adult in a super expensive place like CT. Report back what he says. Unless you're ready to pay $75 for a pizza, it's just not possible. Again, saying "raise the minimum wage" is simple, it sounds great, but unless you have a plan to help business owners deal with the massive increased labor costs, it's intellectually bankrupt. Liberals act like every business is owned by a billionaire. Most small businesses have fairly tight profit margins.

"Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes)."

Yes, because government is always better at everything, than individuals are!

Paul, the government can't help anyone, when they're broke. Here in the liberal utopia of CT, there is tons and tons of tax dollars going to Hartford every single year. Yet vital social services are cut every single year. And it will get far worse in the near future as the union benefits actually become due to retiring Baby Boomers.

Because our state government isn't using that fortune to help needy people, like you would do with it (I know that's what you would do with it). They give it all to the labor unions that got them elected, and gave a ton to somebody to build the jillion dollar busway that nobody rides...and badly needed social programs can fight for the scraps.

You probably know someone who works for a state agency that relies on tax dollars to provide services that poor people actually need, like DCF. Ask them how state funding is trending. It's brutal.

Private charities are way, way more efficient and helpful. Because unlike state government in CT, they aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of the teachers union.

The Rs have a long history of trying to cut social services and funding to poor people. I've posted up lots of examples.

Maybe all those babies born to poor families should pull themselves up by the bootstraps instead of depending on the govern!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Actually he does have a point and you missed it totally. He never once mentioned charity. He said:

"Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security."

Charity is never going to make up for increased funding (ie taxes).

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To the topic of this thread, same question to you...

When would you say a baby becomes a human being, whose life is no longer something the mother can choose to snuff out for her own convenience?

Because 210 of 212 house democrats, say that just after birth, the baby still isn't a human being.

None of the lefties will attempt answering that.

What does that have to do with you misreading his post?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Wow, it is almost like pro-life voters are actually starting to care about welfare of children after birth. This is a good start. Once they start caring more, they might as well start voting democrat. Next they should start giving a chit about education funding and the general welfare of your common man. Raise minimum wage to a living wage. Increase medicare and social security. But No.. we all know Pro life voters really dont give a crap about a child once its born.

Explain this study, please...from the NY Times, it shows a study that shows that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals, despite making less money than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Explain this study, please...from the NY Times, it shows a study that shows that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals, despite making less money than liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/o...21kristof.html

He didn't mention charity, you're trying to assign something he didn't say to fit your narrative.

Plus as we have discussed many many times and you have agreed, the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools which both have far higher % going to expenses than say save the children.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He didn't mention charity, you're trying to assign something he didn't say to fit your narrative.

Plus as we have discussed many many times and you have agreed, the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools which both have far higher % going to expenses than say save the children.

he mentioned “welfare” Paul ( which last time i checked, wasn’t limited to education) and then wdmso jumped on that bandwagon and said republicans don’t care about people after birth.

why not let him answer, instead of incorrectly portraying what he said?

go through it as many times as you want. if you reduce conservative donations to churches ( which is stupid as churches do a lot of charity), then you also have to adjust for things like liberals giving donations to harvard.

Youd adjust conservative donations down, and act like every penny that every liberal donates, feeds a starving person.

You’re not holding any cards. And you still
won’t answer
my question. how come?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he mentioned “welfare” Paul ( which last time i checked, wasn’t limited to education) and then wdmso jumped on that bandwagon and said republicans don’t care about people after birth.

why not let him answer, instead of incorrectly portraying what he said? You are the one who "incorrectly portrayed" what was said, not me! He never mentioned charity but you tried to shift the discussion to charity.

go through it as many times as you want. if you reduce conservative donations to churches ( which is stupid as churches do a lot of charity)Where did I say that?, then you also have to adjust for things like liberals giving donations to harvard. Go right ahead but far more people give $ to churches than schools and both Rs and Ds give $ to both.

Youd adjust conservative donations down, and act like every penny that every liberal donates, feeds a starving person. Where did I ever do anything close to that? You know the difference is tiny but you frequently bring up the donation stat with this time being one of the few mentioning the difference isn't that big.

You’re not holding any cards. If you think so but I showed you where you assigned something to NEBE that he never said - similiar to what you tried to do to me a few times in the post I just quoted. And you still
won’t answer
my question. how come?

If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server.

"You are the one who "incorrectly portrayed" what was said, not me! He never mentioned charity"

He said "welfare". That is not synonymous with education., Giving to charity, is helping improve the welfare of others. If you want to disagree with that because I don't vote the same was as you, knock yourself out.

"Where did I say that?"

You said that the data makes conservatives look more generous than they are, because they give to organizations that aren't dedicated to helping the poor. And that's true. But obviously democrats do that too of course, and you never, ever mentioned that. Not once. You always mentioned that the data skewed conservatives in a more favorable light. Well your side gives plenty to Ivy League endowments that don't need it, things like that. So if you want to focus on giving to actual charities, how come you always single out conservatives? No matter how you slice it, it's nonsense to say conservatives don't care about people. But it's better than most of the arguments that support your side, I guess.

Here's what you said,,,"the difference is related to giving $ to churches/private schools"

If you're going to adjust the data to remove giving to organizations that aren't really charities, you have to do it to both sides. Not just to conservatives.

"If everyone responded to everything you said, John would finally have to update his server."

Shameless coward. You won't answer, because there's only 2 possibilities...either you think life begins at birth, and you can't bring yourself to say that 210 of 212 house democrats just supported what you consider to be infanticde. Or. you support how they voted, in which case you don't want to admit that you're OK with something so ghoulish.

SO instead of answering, you go on crusade to try to show that giving to charity, has little in common with caring about peoples welfare. You're saying that supporting higher taxes is a better indicator of caring for the welfare of others,. that's really brilliant. Because places with the highest taxes (New York City, CT, CA) have eliminated human suffering.

You said that private charities don't give high expense ratios and therefore don't give enough to the actual needy? I'd love to see an accurate study that compares what % of each dollar donated to the catholic church goes to charity, versus a dollar given to the state of CT.

The thread is about that vote. Too bad you couldn't bring yourself to comment on it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Shameless coward.

Ok douchebag