SabresFanInRochester

Um, are you implying I said that Catholic Charities should get government funding? I never said. But I like how a blanket statement that Obamaphones do not exist... blah, blah, blah, and with very little effort I can find examples of that, and it is viewed as an exception to the rule. Let's not consider that there is underlying fraud and misappropriating.

LGR -- I appreciate your demeanor and I appreciate the topic. No life should be written off so I will not in anyway downplay or justify the loss of life of the mother, but as I said earlier, I would like to move on from the topic.

No, no, no. No propaganda. I have seen it firsthand. A welfare recipient (excuse me if that term is outdated) received her new iPhone 7 and it was as she said "because they wanted me to have it." I know this because one of my relatives has taken her under her wing to help her. In addition to the "food stamps" and other aid she receives, she feels she is completely entitled and all of it is graciously provided. It boggles my mind!!! It does not stop at iPhone; she also has an iPad. This is realworld. Also, I play hockey with a guy who has an Obamaphone. His is not an iPhone or anything fancy, but I think that has more to do with his pride than anything. I imagine if he pushed and demanded something newer, he could get it. I absolutely stand by my firsthand account than any document that you could send me with blanket statements about how it's supposed to work.

What are they doing when they come here? School? Fine. Eventually, they will earn a degree. Do we want them to stay to live or work after? They need to naturalize. Work? Impose a severe penalty for anyone hiring an illegally registered person. The illegal immigrant will not have income and will either have to leave or naturalize. Drain on the system? Stop giving them benefits. No health care. No grants. No food stamps. STOP! How would that person be able to stay here without support? Problem solved. You left the conversation -- I don't have that right? Okay, for your sake, I will respond. It was not in the US. It was Italy. Abortion is legal there. Couldn't she find another doctor? Do you ever go to another doctor for a second opinion? I am sorry that she died. This is one story of a mother dying, not even in the US -- they had to pull a story from Europe! Compare that to the more than 700,000 babies that are killed.

I note your post and respectfully refrain from continuing down this topic.

I am going to start a charity called "iPhones for the poor" so I will pick up that segment of disenfranchised. Sarcasm, yes. Reality -- look at crowdfunding. If it is a good cause, in the eye of the person donating, they give money. If it is frivolous -- zilch! Unlike our government that will just shell over cash without looking at the underlying cause (EDIT: OR DOING IT BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM EARN A VOTE, KICKBACK, OR FAVOR.) I stated VERY CLEARLY that charity would not replace all instances of need. But, individual based charity would be much more efficient than government deciding who gets what. Let me propose this -- WARNING -- I have not thought this through -- What if income taxes were cut to 10% to cover the things that government is mandated to do in the Constitution, and an additional 5% (even 10%) of tax went to charities of the choice of the taxpayer. Provide oversight that the charity is not a sham -- so we don't behave like the federal government without deceitful, backdoor, unethical giving. 5% would provide $200B and 10% would provide $400B. This is automatically coming out of the paycheck, so the catholics that I referenced earlier would still provide 10% of their income. And I would like to think that people would still give from their pocket. But, let's not think outside the box. Let's do the same things that has been done for decades and pretend it works. Now, excuse me, I am going to go admire my local inner city for all of the beauty it projects from government programs.

WHAT????? "Government anti-poverty programs reduce crime, lowers childhood malnutrition and give people a chance." Have you visited an inner-city???????? HA HA HA HA HA And, the other one... "Democrats would rather create jobs for people." Holy sh!t, I am going to p!ss myself. I thought Trump's roast was funny -- that was classic! Thank you!

That's the foundation of much of the difference, IMO. I will stereotype, but leave it open for debate. A democrat believes the government can be better trusted and should be left to run "things" instead of the private sector, and a republican believes the government is bureaucratic and inefficient and should stay out of the way. The answer, IMO, lies in the middle -- let business do business with oversight from government.

Just a quite search -- nearly $400 billion is donated to charity. Almost $4 trillion is collected in taxes. If we didn't have excessive government spending, that amount that we need to tax could be a lot lower. If people had more money, do you think they would contribute more to charity? I have to believe that $400 billion would increase. I cannot make a case that charity would completely cover all instances of injustice. BUT, you cannot even come close to telling me funds are not misappropriated or poorly spent when trying to help the disadvantaged. The Obamaphone is a real thing and I am not talking about flip phones to help people who cannot afford phones communicate. I am talking about newly released iPhone 7s. Catholic Charities would not pay for such a thing so maybe they are inconsiderate and uncompassionate people heading up that organization. You are not giving enough credit to the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, oh, and the Clinton Foundation who single-handedly provided AIDS relief to half of all AIDS patients. Boy, Hillary is such a great person. Maybe I really should vote for her.

I respect your statement and your opinion, and I will try to leave the abortion issue behind as it was not intended to hijack this thread.

YES!!!! I think you just became a fiscal conservative!!! Cut everyone's taxes and stop spending money on sh!t.

There is a heartbeat around week 5. Implying that it is so early should be countered with the fact that the baby has life well before 13 weeks.

It was over-the-top. Like the part about Hillary saying "pardon me" was also hysterical, and he would have done well if he used the three that I referenced and kept it on the up-and-up.

From that article... Another 50 percent are believed to pay income taxes. I question that. I cannot hire someone who is not documented to be a US citizen. How are they paying income taxes??? That article is very politically motivated. It references Trump and allegations that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. This article defends that they do by saying "kick in their billions in the form of income, property, sales or excise taxes." In my opinion, very little is coming in from income taxes. Property, sales and excise taxes constitute much of that pie. The question isn't how much are they contributing, it should be how much are they not contributing? If we use the biasness of the article that says 50% are believed to pay income taxes, that means 50% are not. We are okay with this?

Because they cannot defend themselves. A mother is not impacting just her life, she is impacting the life of another human. The Democratic party works to help underprivileged and minorities because they don't have a voice or power. Why doesn't this extend to an unborn baby? I am curious, D4rkSabre, Is the death penalty acceptable? I cannot stereotype and it is not my intention. Share your experience if I am not accurate in describing you, but in my experience, people feel that convicted felons should not be subjected to the death penalty because we do not have a right, OR, it is possible that the justice system is rigged and we got it wrong. Instead, that population supports prisoner reform. I don't know why they are so strong in favor of saving the life of a criminal versus not protecting a baby that does not have a voice.

Herein lies some of the issue that Republicans have with Democrats. A Republican would rather give to their church or the charity of their choice, instead of give to the government to decide who should be helped. Do you think Republicans who are pro-life want to support Planned Parenthood subsidizing? If taxes were lower, people would give more. The church suggests that a parishioner donate a certain portion of their income to the church. The less income someone has due to taxes, the less they contribute and less control they have over where the money goes and what it pays for. You also have to be careful when using party platforms. The media paints those pictures and they can turn into good/evil very quickly. You paint them very generic, but if you drill it down by what the media wants to stereotype Republicans to be: Republicans are old white guys who are CEOs of major companies and trying to make as much money as possible. They want tax cuts so they can make more money and those tax cuts will only hurt the impoverished people who they in turn hire and pay ridiculously low wages to.

I do not judge you. This is a serious question as I do not know what your previous posts have been. But, do you consider yourself a compassionate Democrat concerned for the good of all humanity?

I agree with all of this and you, but I have to wonder what the conversation from Obama was that convinced Bernie to drop out and support Hillary. There is something in it for Bernie, even if it's just a good-natured "for the love of country" and unity, which I think would be a naive position to take.

Your position is that breathing without assistance constitutes life. A heartbeat doesn't mean anything? I am not attacking you, and you certainly can have your opinion. But you have to consider that a person could assign life to a baby with a heartbeat. Think about the last time you saw a pregnant woman, and someone came up to their belly or a conversation ensued about the baby kicking and interacting with the mother. That's not life?

I appreciate your sentiment but I respectfully disagree. I think a majority of the anti-abortion crowd are devout Christians who are quite charitable and compassionate to underprivileged. I do not have data to back the demographics of the pro-life crowd, and I am sure it could be found quite easily, but that is my impression.

I heard that statement and I interpreted as they are paying taxes, but not necessarily federal income taxes or payroll taxes. Sales tax? Stuff of that nature. I cannot imagine an illegal paying payroll taxes -- they wouldn't have the social security number or pass the background check to be hired. If it is under the table, there is no taxing. Maybe I am naive and missing it, but for me to hire someone, I have to do quite a bit to prove the person is a US citizen.

It's not my moral standard. When you take someone's life, it is murder. I am assuming your position is that a baby is not a baby until you can hold it outside of the mother. So a baby that is born prematurely at 30 weeks, is he/she a mutant. Because if that same baby was aborted in the womb, it wouldn't be a big deal if that is what the mother wants. And when a mother or father kills an infant by shaken-baby syndrome or abandons a baby in a garbage can, shouldn't that be acceptable? Why should society intervene. Why can't that be the mother's right?

I appreciate the civility. Maybe not to the extent of abortion beliefs being deeply rooted within each of us, but the challenge is that each of us have strong feelings about gun rights, income redistribution, the role of government, .... I appreciate this forum to debate. I love having a conversation with someone and appreciating they have a different belief and providing that person with consideration VERSUS the toting the party line approach. If I have been guilty of that, I apologize -- I sincerely try not to do that and try to base my position on facts and not from drinking Koolaid. There are some great people on here, and they represent both sides of the aisle. I would have a beer with those people any day and feel good about the result and outcome. Not that either of us would win the other person over, but that we would learn about the other person and be better people for it. Na zdrowie Eleven!

I don't view murder as a choice.

I love how it is always a Democrat in an ivory tower that pulls race into the topic and then chastises the other party for being racist. It's not a race issue. I know the Al Smith dinner was mentioned above -- I just had a chance to watch Trump's roast -- https://youtu.be/jmQzQbJ82jM Some of the funniest stuff I heard -- The Rosie O'Donnell bit was precious!!! And the part about meeting Hillary's campaign workers who are laboriously toiling to get her into office was priceless. But, then he hit the middle of his speech and it got really uncomfortable. I don't know what the parameters are for this is venue, but there was no holding back. It was uncomfortable for me -- not because he said things that were true and sometimes the truth can hurt -- but because of the venue. I wish I knew more about that dinner so I knew if it was geared to be a true roast.