Why are we sending so much money to Israel? I don't think they should be building settlements, should pull back to the 1967 borders and since they have nukes can defend themselves already against any Arab nation. Why was I paying for the invasion of Iraq? I didn't believe Saddam represented an imminent threat and felt we needed to focus on Afghanistan. Why am I paying to help defend World oil supplies? I believe we are being held hostage to fossil fuels and the only way we can transition from fossil fuels is to make them much more expensive. There are a lot of things that we pay for as taxpayers that we don't personally support but we are democratic republic and we elect leaders who make decisions for us collectively. We can go on and on about what we support and what we don't support but for every issue you think we should spend money on there are several others who don't support it. So yes there are issues we don't want to see our government but acting on but to tie this primarily to an issue of why should taxpayer's indirectly fund something they don't support well that could go to anything the government spends money on.
I understand. I agree also with everything you listed. My point goes in line with your point. We shouldn't be funding Israel's political strategies as you listed. That is not a proper use of our tax money. The invasion of Iraq is as morally wrong as funding abortion with taxpayer $$. The whole concept that the government funds things taxpayers don't support is EXACTLY the problem. In a republic the government is a public servant to serve the citizens. If citizens want to support Israel let them start a private foundation and set up donation tables in front of Wal Marts. If citizens wanted to invade Iraq, unprovoked then they should have joined a Kurdish rebel group. I don't agree with spending tax dollars on abortion. That is my opinion. I felt like in this thread I was attacked for having an opinion. But the point of free discussion is to share freely. If anyone likes to see tax $$$ spent overseas and doesn't think there should be no questioning as to if it is best or wise, fine. I can respect that. But when you are told you are a liar because you express your opinion. I generally feel that is a result of not discussing an issue in person. It comes with the territory in D&D.
That's not quite my point. Of course it wrong that government is funding things that people don't support but the problem is that we live in a diverse society with lots of different views. No government can act based upon the views of every citizen or even every interest groups. We elect representatives to decide what the government does which includes how it spends money. You might not agree that money is spent on a certain issue but others do and it happens that those who think that way have elected a candidate that for the most part supports that viewpoint. You might not like that but that is the part of the social contract that we have made with our form of government. I don't agree with sending money to Israel but its not the fact that I am paying for it through the government that bothers me I just don't think it is in the interest of the US to do so. That it is my tax dollars I accept that under a democracy there are things my tax dollars might be going to that I don't agree with but that's the nature of having a republican democracy.
Grizzled can speak for himself but speaking for myself I am always glad to hear your opinions, especially when they are in opposition to my own. We might not always agree but I've always felt you've been respectful and honest. Now back to poo flinging.
I called you out in this thread specifically because I feel you were NOT expressing a valid opinion. I feel you were being deliberately misleading and manipulative, and that is not the same as having an honest opinion. I’ll use this quote as another example. You made this statement initially, and then you seemed to reverse it by implying that there are situations where abortion is justified - and if so then there are also situations where it would be just to fund it - and now you seem to be reversing your position yet again and saying that you don't favour abortions of any sort. I think you were just crafting rhetoric in order to bash Obama to begin with, and not expressing an honest opinion at all, and when you were questioned on it your position it fell apart because it wasn't based on anything solid to begin with. This is a debate and discussion forum, however, so please feel free to clarify and support your position. And here we have even more deception and trickery. Nowhere did I say that there shouldn’t be questioning. I want just the opposite, in fact. I want to look into the issue and see what the facts are, but I think you just want to paint the Obama administration in a certain light and avoid addressing the facts. You still have not provided the links, I’ll note. I also did not call you a liar. I accused you of trying to spin the issue. These are not exactly the same thing. It boils down to this. Do you really want to discuss and debate this issue? If so then clearly state your position, clarify your flip-flops, and provide your supporting evidence, namely the links that you say you read describing how this money is spent. Otoh, if all you want to do is bash Obama with unsupported and fallacious claims, then I hope you understand that you should get called on that in a forum like this.
Grizzled, I think your criticism is a bit unfair. The challenge here is that we have a medium that we can't REALLY communicate with. We can write posts to one another...but that's very different than sitting across the table from one another sharing viewpoints. Beyond that, I really struggle with whole, "you're being manipulative" thing on here....because most of aren't posting here to manipulate anything...we're not taking it that seriously to begin with. Really, what is rhester's aim here? He's sharing his feelings...it stops there. He's not petitioning or suing or anything else...he's come to a Rockets messageboard to simply post an opinion. He's not asking you do anything about it. I think we take this and ourselves way too seriously here.
I think rhester's op was not manipulative but it was way over the top given the actual particulars of the issue. now maybe he was misinformed but the post came straight from the relgious wing nut right play book.
his concern is human life. i know the guy personally. he's only a wingnut in that his entire life is devoted to service of other people. i don't know what he understood or didn't understand...but i hate to see people assume such negative crap about a man based on the starting of a thread.
I didn't call him a wingnut, but it is wingnut strategy. My tax dollars going to pay for abortions, is not nearly accurately portraying this issue.
This is the initial post: It seems he was talking about funding for promotion of abortion, pgabriel. But beyond that....I don't like that the reaction is to assume the man a liar or a manipulator. I'm not saying you're saying that. And I'm sure I've assumed way too much about people from their posts here....but in this case I just happen to know the individual to whom the assumption is directed and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
you're right, promote abortion is still pretty strong, but i'm wrong in saying he said paying for abortion.
Let me explain... I will gladly admit that I do not keep up on the news. I guess I should be embarrassed to say that I had not heard of this Mexico City Gag rule... (Shows how ill informed I am) I read about it (actually by chance) I googled some articles pro and con... I think the title of the thread was misleading, I understood this whole thing to be about funding groups that 'promoted' abortion. The Planned Parenthood articles I read said as much. OK, I wasn't informed that tax dollars went to help the International Planned Parenthood promote abortion (legislation, counseling, publications etc); I could care less about the Bush did this, Clinton did this, Bush did this, President Obama did this... I just don't think that executive orders is the best way to deal with this and I am highly sensitive to the abortion issue. If I have any criticism towards President Obama it would be that I would like for him to look at this closer, but I read that he was expected to do this and that is fine with me. I oppose abortions. I don't attack the issue. This is D&D and I understand Grizzled responsess. I was trying to point out that I have an opinion but I am not trying to be deceptive to make a point. My point is that I don't agree with the government doing this. I understand Sishir's points, I understand the system, I just don't like it. I don't expect to change other people's opinions by anything I post. Am not trying. Grizzled- still like your posts and I am sure I would love you.
agreed. except this is an executive order, that's reversing an executive order. perhaps they cancel eachother out?
I appreciate your concern Max. I don’t think people take things too seriously here in general, however, and this is a debate and discussion forum after all, and there has been a lot very good and thoughtful discussion on this board over the years too. (In recent years basso and TJ and texxx have driven a lot of it away, but that’s another issue.) I think there is a question about what standards people should be held to considering that this not a court of law or formal debating club, but the OP was pretty over the top, wouldn’t you say? He’s assuming facts that aren’t in evidence, and he’s not providing any even though he’s claiming to have read them online, and he’s using inflammatory terms like “pro-abortion groups”. If I thought this was coming from a kid I would take a more explanatory approach, or if it was coming from basso, TJ or texxx I would just ignore it, but I think rhester really ought to be held to higher standards than this. It’s not like we’re talking about a basketball trade either. We’re talking about abortion and people in third world countries who are in crisis situations. These aren’t merely lightweight or recreational issues. I asked him to provide his links and support his position, and there is actually a very good chance that I would agree with him on many of the kinds of abortions he doesn't agree with, but he hasn’t done it, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s because he can’t justify what he said from what he read. From where I sit the OP looks pretty clearly like little more than heavy political spin which is exploiting some very serious issues. IMO, if you say things like that with no support behind them on a debate and discussion board you should get called on it, and you should be prepared for some blowback too. I would say that he established the tone with his opening post.
How about we keep funding international abortions, but we make adopting African babies with AIDS tax deductible. Don't want your tax dollars to fund abortions in Africa? Adopt an AIDS baby! It's pro-life and fiscally conservative!
He's a big boy. He started a very inflammatory thread without an ounce of evidence to backup his claims, and he still hasn't provided any. No one would have assume anything if he would back up his claims, something that everyone is expected to do in any kind debate or discussion. I've seen rhester say some very good things on this board, and I've also seen him say some truly outrageous things, andI think your support for him here is very misplaced. Remember that Obama is a Christian man himself, and rhester is essentially trying to paint him as a "pro-abortionist". That is a very bad thing to say, and again, he said it without an ounce of support, and he still hasn't provided any.
Look at what closer? If you care about this issue then care enough to put together a coherent argument supported by some facts, preferably with some links, so that there is something to debate and discuss. Without it you're expecting us to take your word for it, to take it as fact, and in this case I very much suspect that it is not true.
Grizzled, let's start from the top. I heard, actually I saw an email from a conservative site in my junk mail referencing Obama using an executive order blah blah blah. I googled and I think this is at least one on the first articles I read- link A fox news article. I had time to google more about it and read something very pro the President's move stating that his action would actually reduce abortions, but the logic and the proof was lacking so I looked at a couple more sites to try to understand what the executive order was going to do. It seemed to me that it freed taxpayer money to groups who would promote abortion overseas. And what I mean by promote is spend money to either lobby for pro abortion legislation, use the funds to provide information on abortions and in some cases actually fund abortions. I happen to disagree on the use of tax dollars for this purpose because, #1 I oppose abortion, but #2 I believe at best it should be handled by legislation, with debate in Congress so that citizens can have more voice on the issue. If you think I am out to attack the President you are wrong. If you think my posts here are an attack against the President that is your opinion. But if you think I am lying about not supporting taxpayer funds going overseas to groups like International Planned Parenthood, what is that? I didn't go back and post a link because I found so many later; it was all over the internet. CNN, Fox, NY Times, Yahoo, MSN, CNBC etc If your point is I disguised some attack against President Obama, I appologize because if you felt the need to defend him I am sure I flubbed in my posts. I don't go back and read my posts to see if they are coherent or if I made a mistake. I make mistakes. But before you call me out for being deceptive and lying I wanted to reasonably explain that I don't see that being accurate. I try to clear up misconceptions in the day they happen. If you still think I am deceptive and anti-Obama that is OK also. I have tried to explain, that is enough, carry on. What I said about you I meant, no deception.
I believe that if abortion was your real concern that you would put together a good argument backed up by some solid facts to inform people about an issue that you are passionate about. I don't see that you've made any attempt to do that. I still don't know what your position on abortion is. First you said that you were against abortion, then you said that you agree with it under certain circumstances. Now you’re saying you’re against it again. If you won't state your position, or you don't have a clear position, then what does that say about how much you really care about the issue? For those who do want to take this issue seriously, I did a quick search and found some good starter information. What isn’t completely clear from this article is the link between the policy and the groups that provide the kind of information discussed in the third paragraph.
I don't care if he's Christian or not...I don't care if Obama is or not...you called out this guy's character. You called him a liar and/or a manipulator from thousands of miles away due to a couple of posts in an internet message board which may or may not be interpreted the way you interpreted them.
