the sign over the abortion clinic should read..... OVER 20 MILLION KILLED AND STILL COUNTING!

What do you base this on?

What evidence do you have that liberals are dispropotionately more "caring" about children after they are born?

Here are facts that we know:

• People who actually have children tend to be conservatives.
• Charities are supported disproportionately by conservatives.
• Women who give up having a career in order to stay home and care for their children tend to be conservatives.

These are facts that we know of.

Let me add more to this though: Elsewhere it was calculated that the # of children to American citizens who don't qualify for Medicaid and whose parents make less than $75,000 a year is less than 1 million. Probably closer to 500,000.

If the so-called "Caring" liberals set up a single charity that had say $500 million (that is, if the 100 million or so people woh identify themselves as liberals gave $5 each to) then each of these children could receive $500 a year to pay for catastrophic health insurance (i.e. not very good insurance but better than nothing).  If the "caring" liberals could spare $20 each, then they could provide $2 billion.

But "caring" to liberals really means having ME pay thousands of dollars to take care of other people's children while they pay little to nothing but act morally superior.

if their are born. and not killed by said liberals before birth!!!!!!!!!!

Because conservatives don't support the federal government being in control of our lives?

Republicans are just as much behind the nanny state as Dem's are.  They think they know better than the average American on many issues.  A few that pop into my head immediately are - prayer in school - Texas just passed a law allowing prayer at school functions.  That is definately not on the Democrat agenda.  The sex toys ban in Alabama - the conservative Supreme Court won't hear the case.  So much for consenting adults.  This is a law that over 90% of Alabamans think is stupid but daddy knows best and daddy is the government.  Emminent domain abuse - Emminent domain was not meant for football stadiums.  Warrantless wiretaps.  Red light cameras. 

Reply By: MasonMPosted: Saturday, October 06, 2007 From what I've seen Liberals tend to support causes that are paid for with other people's money, not their own

Liberals pay taxes too.  There is no option on the tax return of I am liberal please let the conservative pay for these programs. 

Liberals seem to define "caring" as being in support of government programs that are paid for by other people.

Here's a newsflash, liberals pay taxes too. 

Let me add more to this though: Elsewhere it was calculated that the # of children to American citizens who don't qualify for Medicaid and whose parents make less than $75,000 a year is less than 1 million. Probably closer to 500,000.

Where in the world did you get that statistic?  Out of 260 million Americans there are only between 500,000 and 1 million children whose parents make less than $75,000 and don't qualify for Medicaid?  That doesn't even pass the smell test.  I know that fact is inaccurate.  Schip currently has 6.6 million children enrolled. 

"Currently, SCHIP serves about 6.6 million children.   To qualify, a child must be ineligible for Medicaid and have a family income below 200 percent of the poverty benchmark -- $34,340 for a family of three."  

I agree religious freedom is not on the Democrat agenda.

Note that the law in question ALLOWS prayer at school functions. As an atheist, I could care less about what magical super being people want to talk to.  I don't see how a law that lifts the ban on religious freedom as being a bad thing.

I don't know anything about this case so I can't comment.

As for Emminent domain, I agree that it's awful. However, it doesn't have anythign to do with political parties. Democrats tend to be much more inclined to support it than conservatives.

But "caring" to liberals really means having ME pay thousands of dollars to take care of other people's children while they pay little to nothing but act morally superior.

The caring liberals pay taxes too.  A point I have to make over and over because the conservatives seem to think that they are the only ones who pay taxes.  It is in your best interest and our country's best interest to have healthy children. 

Those kids who are recieving no or poor quality medical care are going to school with your kids.  If they cannot afford to go to the doctor and get diagnosed and prescribed antibiotics, they will still be at school spreading strep throat or another contagious illness until it progresses to the point where the parent has to make an emergency room visit that your tax dollars may pay for which costs ten times the cost of a visit to a doctors office. 

Those sick kids parents are missing more work if they have to stay home while their child's illness runs its course instead of getting a diagnosis and medication. 

Those same parents might lose their jobs because of missing work to be with their sick kids and then they have to go on welfare. 

More people claim bankruptcy because of medical expenses than any other reason.  Does the credit card company just casually swallow that loss?  No they charge their other customers higher fees to offset those losses. 

This veto was not about fiscal responsibility and it was not about only helping the poor.  The Republican Congress passed and Bush signed into law a Medicare drug bill estimated to cost 1.2 trillion over ten years.  And the middle class qualifies for that program.  So helping seniors pay for their medication is a priority over children recieving insurance and quality medical care.  I'm thinking this is because the seniors can vote and those big campaign contributors, drug companies, supported it. 

I agree religious freedom is not on the Democrat agenda. Note that the law in question ALLOWS prayer at school functions. As an atheist, I could care less about what magical super being people want to talk to. I don't see how a law that lifts the ban on religious freedom as being a bad thing.

It's not about religous freedom.  It's about Christianity.  Wait until a Muslim or Budist tries to offer a prayer then it will become clear what it's about.  It was about a valedictorian being allowed to proselytize at a graduation ceremony. 

Conservatives pay a lot more in taxes than liberals.

For example, in the 2004 election, those making more than $200k per year voted for Bush by a ratio of 7 to 3. 

That same group pays 75% of the taxes.

So you are correct in the sense that liberals do pay taxes but conservatives are the ones paying the lion's share of the taxes by far.

So it is a fair statement to say that conservatives are the ones who actually pay for liberal "Caring". 

Add to that the fact that conservatves are also the ones who support private charities the most and the argument becomes pretty irrefutable.

The fact is: When it comes to actually helping people, conservatives aren't just a little bit more "Caring", they are a LOOOOT more caring.

Liberals "care" by holding political beliefs that requires no sacrifice on their part. Their beliefs are hollow because they do not follow up their beliefs with meaningful action.

 

No, my kids will come home with illnesses because the kids at school who are sick do have health insurance but can't stay home because there's no one at home to take care of them because both parents have to work in order to pay for the "compassionate" policies of liberals.

I think most people who have children know this already (i.e. as to why sick kids are at school).

 

As opposed to giving people medical insurance they did not pay for which results in everyone else paying more to offset those expenses.

The difference here, however, is that at least the uninsured will end up having to contribute something prior to bankruptcy rather than simply having the rest of us carrying their water totally.

So?  The founders explicitly expected states and local communities to be able to do just this.

The 1st amendment states "CONGRESS shall make now law.."  The meaning of that is that the federal government will not establish a religion or decide what can and can't be said.

The matter would be explicitly left up to states and local communities to decide.  This was because the various colonies at the time had radically different (from their perspective) religious views.  A person in Virgnia might feel the people in Massachusets was a heathen and didn't want them being able to tell them what they could and couldn't do in their schools and communities.

Allowing an individual to talk about God or whatever is their right.

You make the mistake in assuming that I'm okay with it because it's Christian. Let me be clear: I think all of you people who believe in magical super beings based on 2,000 year old books are silly. Some girl or group talking about Jesus means the same to me as some Star Trek zealot talking about Spock. 

But I believe that people should have the freedom to express their religious views without interference from the federal government. Let states and local communities deal with it as was intended.  

Please point out the language in the law that states only Christian prayer is allowed? This is the sort of absurd emotional hyperbole that causes Liberals to not be taken seriously.

pros·e·ly·tize (prŏs'ə-lĭ-tīz') Pronunciation Key
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es

v. intr.

1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

Last time I checked, a prayer doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of proselytizing. Sheer hyperbole.

Admit it, Liberals believe in religious freedom for everyone except Christians, that's the real point isn't it? Christians are the majority in this country and as usual Liberals hate the majority.



On average Liberals pay far less in taxes than Conservatives, so yes they are in fact demanding that other people pay for the programs they support. They could just as easily pony up a few bucks to start their own program for these things but they simply won't cough up the cash or do the work. It's easier to talk the talk than to actually walk the walk.

Let me point out the dangerous line of thinking you're taking here:

To me, liberalism is as much of a religion as christiainity. Both believe in a magical, all powerful super entity (the Government or God depending on which group we're talking about).

They both have blind faith that their beliefs are backed by reality despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The difference is that the religion of liberalism is constantly proselytized at me and my children every day.  The mantra "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is constantly shoved down our throats in a far more obnoxious way than any traditional religion pushes their beliefs on me.

I'd far rather sit through a graduation listening to a valedictoriam talking about God in her life than having to sit through the guest speaker's rant about the need for us to provide universal health care.

sorry dude but there is a slight difference here. Spock is a made up character. Jesus is/was a real person.