Yes, imagine if pro lifers were actually pro living perhaps US children would be better off. Save the innocent children! Only three other countries in the developed world have a higher child poverty rate (pdf) than the U.S., according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Mexico leads all nations with a rate of 25.79, followed by Chile (23.95), Turkey (23.46), and the U.S. (21.63). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../by-the-numbers-childhood-poverty-in-the-u-s/
If only that made this surprising in some way. Guess that depends on how highly you rate living. Unwanted orphan in the child support safety net of a pro athlete?Sure. One of the 1.6 million(Current record) kids living on the streets of America? Pass. Despite being pro choice, I would actually consider voting pro life if a candidate was willing to back quality government programs for early childhood education, housing, etc to those being raised in the system. Instead, most pro lifers are prone to policy that aims to increase the number of orphans, decrease the support system for them, and increasing the prison space for the person these poor kids often become. Thus continuing the cycle of ignoring the consequences of our own decisions. Katrina showed us that a problem isn't worth preventing until you're already drowning in it.
No kidding, why would you even date or having anything to do with a girl that has been with so many NBA guys. Plenty of beautiful women who aren't crazy out there that are super humble. So weird to me. He is normal looking guy that went to Duke and has money. So easy to find good women if you have half a brain.
Outside of football (soccer), athletes don't care much for beauty in girls. First come, first serve as long as you're dtf. This chick is buttaz.
Mark, do you support the murder of all people that you don't give money to? If you pass a homeless man on the street without giving him money am I to assume you support killing him???? I'm shocked at your barbarism.
Abortion contract! Really? Redick reminds me of one of those guys from "Dumb & Dumber"! He seems to be more concerned about child support than his own personal well being. I mean how dumb do you have to be to sleep with this tramp without putting on at LEAST three raincoats on? It appears that this harlot gets passed around more than a five dollar bill, why would you go anywhere near that? I always thought of Duke as a school of higher education, but I guess any dumb moron can attend...... ....... ....... .......
Apparently. I have to admit that it is a big of an eye opener now that I realize how many people think others should simply die. When my company didn't provide me health insurance? Means my boss wasn't opposed to killing me! Shocking!
That doesn't have same it's the inherent asininity of a Republican congress that sees legislating (mostly poor) women into mandatorily carrying their pregnancies to term, and at the same time terminating funding for the federal WIC nutrition progarm (aka food stamps). It's that it's heartless or barbaric (though it is to most observers) - it's completely illogical and not really defensible on any grounds from a policy standpoint. I'm not going to insult your intellect by explaining why. It's plain stupid. If you support stupid policies, so be it. But be prepared to have that pointed out.
Your post has some incoherency to it but I'll respond anyway. There is no logical problem with being opposed to killing an innocent baby (which is what a pro-lifer sees abortion as) and also being opposed to giving free healthcare to all or being in favor of the state administering the death penalty to those deemed guilty by their peers. Now, I happen to be a pro-lifer who is also opposed to the death penalty, but it is not hypocritical to take the opposite side of those two issues. They aren't the same thing.
I'm not saying it's hypocritical - your hypocrisy or non-hypocrisy is a bunch of semantics of no consequence - I'm saying it's stupid to force poor women to have babies that they don't want, and simultaneously make it more difficult for those children to survive post-delivery. It's logically ridiculous and indefensible, and terrible policy. BUT OH NOES, PLEASE DON'T CALL US HYPOCRITES - because yeah this is about that. .
I agree it is bad policy to make it more difficult for children to survive post-delivery. So, good on you. The picture I quoted and mark's quote imply a logical disconnect somehow between being pro guns, pro-death penalty and anti-national healthcare and anti-abortion. There is no disconnect. It is perfectly rational to believe in the right to own a gun to defend yourself, the right of the state to execute a guilty criminal, anti-tax payer funded national healthcare and anti-killing of unborn children. I had started to think you were gone from the D&D. Hadn't seen you in awhile. I didn't miss you.
Don't worry bro - I respect you as one of the few right wingers who is actually occasionally embarrassed enough by what he posts enough to try to justify/back away from it.
Why is something that's tax payer funded defined as free? What's free about getting services for the taxes you pay? Are highways free? Is the military free? Are police and fire department free? What the hell? Who knew all of this was free! Yes, saying life is precious while putting people (innocent in some cases) to death is hypocritical.
OK. Everyone gets services commensurate with the taxes they pay in. Deal? Of course people in this country get free benefits. Do you think life is precious? Would you kill someone trying to kill you? HYPOCRITE! It would be hypocritical to believe in protecting innocent life yet have no opposition to the death penalty being administered to innocent people. I don't know anyone who is OK with innocent people being put to death, though I admit that most don't actually know that innocent people are in fact executed.
