AJ Ferrari to 197

[Bigbrog]

14 minutes ago, whaletail said:

When they try to impose their religion on me... I do.

This is a serious, and growing problem in the US and abroad.

Numerous state laws, essentially banning abortion completely, have recently been promulgated in direct contradiction of popular opinion, and without input from physicians. Unsurprisingly, many of these states have also eliminated free school lunch programs for those in need, along with any other resources that might trickle down to children in poverty.

The underlying rationale for such jurisprudence - that life begins at conception, and must be protected (at least until birth)  - is wholly religious.

Alongside Alito's majority SCOTUS opinion (Dobbs v. Jackson WHO) that led to the above state laws, Clarence Thomas writes a concurrent opinion suggesting the court should go after contraception next.  As an aside, Alito and Thomas have recently been under fire for receiving well over 8 figures each in undisclosed gifts (bribes) from individuals with business before the court.

The current Speaker of the House, third in the Presidential succession line, is an Evangelical Christian and young earth creationist, and unabashedly agitates for a US theocracy.

Numerous Republican house members claim the US Constitution includes no Establishment clause, and also agitate for theocratic rule.

I don't care about AJ's supposed religious beliefs, but I'm going to mock and harangue right wing religious lunacy (and any accompanying hypocrisy), especially that which is espoused by those in power, however I can. 

So what YOU believe in should be imposed on others...got it!  When you start your argument with a statement completely contradicting yourself...and then a statement that is completely wrong and weasel worded you lose all credibility..."essentially banning abortion completely"...before I ask you to tell me what states have done so I guess I should ask what your definition of "essentially" is.  And because you think majority of people in NY and LA lean one way it is the "majority" of how every single state feels you again lose any sort of credibility.  The SCOTUS decision didn't ban a thing...they gave states the power to decide on the issue....which constitutionally is the right decision.

I too don't care what AJ's personal believes are, and I too don't want someone to push them on me PERSONALLY...but decisions/policies to me are based on personal opinion/data/logic...couldn't care less if the politicians who made those decisions/policies go to church or not.

[The_KC_Godfather]

22 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

So what YOU believe in should be imposed on others...got it!  When you start your argument with a statement completely contradicting yourself...and then a statement that is completely wrong and weasel worded you lose all credibility..."essentially banning abortion completely"...before I ask you to tell me what states have done so I guess I should ask what your definition of "essentially" is.  And because you think majority of people in NY and LA lean one way it is the "majority" of how every single state feels you again lose any sort of credibility.  The SCOTUS decision didn't ban a thing...they gave states the power to decide on the issue....which constitutionally is the right decision.

I too don't care what AJ's personal believes are, and I too don't want someone to push them on me PERSONALLY...but decisions/policies to me are based on personal opinion/data/logic...couldn't care less if the politicians who made those decisions/policies go to church or not.

Nailed it.

My problem with abortion (other than I disagree with it morally, but that's my opinion...not something others should care about or follow) is that tax payer money (ie. money I worked hard for) goes towards supporting it. If you want to sleep around and not use protection, then why should I pay for your abortion if you don't want a kid??  That's the point of leaving it to the states.  If you want to live in a state and have your tax dollars go towards someone who whore's around and is too stupid to not use protection (instead of tax dollars going to, say, providing free lunch to underprivileged kids), fine. I choose to not live in a state like that.  Any federal funding for planned parenthood or the like should be completely out of bounds.

[jackwebster]

22 hours ago, LIV4GOD said:

When one already has every available fact and an infinite mind that is not stuck in linear time, there is no reason for a new set. 

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[whaletail]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

So what YOU believe in should be imposed on others...got it!  When you start your argument with a statement completely contradicting yourself...and then a statement that is completely wrong and weasel worded you lose all credibility..."essentially banning abortion completely"...before I ask you to tell me what states have done so I guess I should ask what your definition of "essentially" is.  And because you think majority of people in NY and LA lean one way it is the "majority" of how every single state feels you again lose any sort of credibility.  The SCOTUS decision didn't ban a thing...they gave states the power to decide on the issue....which constitutionally is the right decision.

I too don't care what AJ's personal believes are, and I too don't want someone to push them on me PERSONALLY...but decisions/policies to me are based on personal opinion/data/logic...couldn't care less if the politicians who made those decisions/policies go to church or not.

As haphazard and hard to follow as your response is - 

1.  The belief that women should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies is NOT ME IMPOSING MY WILL, but simply recognizing that they should receive the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

2.  Essentially isn't used disingenuously, but rather to acknowledge that there are some exceptions to save the life of the mother.  Since that doesn't confer much of a right (not to die), abortion is essentially banned in those states that have acted post Dobbs.

Such exceptions are also purposefully worded so vaguely that hospitals don't know what will or won't be considered legal.  Therefore, doctors can't use their own best judgment when deciding how and when to medically intervene.  As a result, women have already nearly died as a result of these draconian laws.

SOME STATES DON'T PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS.

3. They are absolutely against public sentiment.  Most Americans favor some limits on abortion, obviously, but in Kansas' recent public referendum, for example, the proposed law was struck down 59-41.  Similar results in Wisconsin, and both are red states and should reflect higher than average anti-abortion sentiment.

I'm not anecdotally citing LA/NYC opinion polls, and please don't put words in my mouth.

I'll address your remaining "arguments" when I have some time (and can stop laughing at you the KC_Godfather).

[whaletail]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

So what YOU believe in should be imposed on others...got it!  When you start your argument with a statement completely contradicting yourself...and then a statement that is completely wrong and weasel worded you lose all credibility..."essentially banning abortion completely"...before I ask you to tell me what states have done so I guess I should ask what your definition of "essentially" is.  And because you think majority of people in NY and LA lean one way it is the "majority" of how every single state feels you again lose any sort of credibility.  The SCOTUS decision didn't ban a thing...they gave states the power to decide on the issue....which constitutionally is the right decision.

I too don't care what AJ's personal believes are, and I too don't want someone to push them on me PERSONALLY...but decisions/policies to me are based on personal opinion/data/logic...couldn't care less if the politicians who made those decisions/policies go to church or not.

BTW, where did I ever claim the Dobbs decision banned abortion?

I stated that it directly led to the state laws at issue, which is absolutely accurate. 

Please stop putting words in mouth (or attributing arguments to me which are not mine).

[jchapman]

2 hours ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

Nailed it.

My problem with abortion (other than I disagree with it morally, but that's my opinion...not something others should care about or follow) is that tax payer money (ie. money I worked hard for) goes towards supporting it. If you want to sleep around and not use protection, then why should I pay for your abortion if you don't want a kid??  That's the point of leaving it to the states.  If you want to live in a state and have your tax dollars go towards someone who whore's around and is too stupid to not use protection (instead of tax dollars going to, say, providing free lunch to underprivileged kids), fine. I choose to not live in a state like that.  Any federal funding for planned parenthood or the like should be completely out of bounds.

Do you believe that churches should be tax exempt?

[The_KC_Godfather]

42 minutes ago, whaletail said:

As haphazard and hard to follow as your response is - 

1.  The belief that women should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies is NOT ME IMPOSING MY WILL, but simply recognizing that they should receive the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

2.  Essentially isn't used disingenuously, but rather to acknowledge that there are some exceptions to save the life of the mother.  Since that doesn't confer much of a right (not to die), abortion is essentially banned in those states that have acted post Dobbs.

Such exceptions are also purposefully worded so vaguely that hospitals don't know what will or won't be considered legal.  Therefore, doctors can't use their own best judgment when deciding how and when to medically intervene.  As a result, women have already nearly died as a result of these draconian laws.

SOME STATES DON'T PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION FOR RAPE VICTIMS.

3. They are absolutely against public sentiment.  Most Americans favor some limits on abortion, obviously, but in Kansas' recent public referendum, for example, the proposed law was struck down 59-41.  Similar results in Wisconsin, and both are red states and should reflect higher than average anti-abortion sentiment.

I'm not anecdotally citing LA/NYC opinion polls, and please don't put words in my mouth.

I'll address your remaining "arguments" when I have some time (and can stop laughing at you the KC_Godfather).

Laugh away…I don’t see anything funny about my statement. Clearly you’re intellectually superior to everyone here so I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.

Women have the right to choose, but their choice is made when they choose to have sex. They know there’s a chance they’ll get pregnant. If you don’t want a child, keep your legs closed. If you want to have sex and get an abortion, cool…pay for it yourself. Don’t use private insurance to drive up my rates or use tax payer dollars. Maybe money out of their own pocket will make them think twice next time. How many people do you think would support abortion if it cost $20k out of pocket?

The key point is they have a choice up front. If you don’t have a choice (rape), then you should absolutely be helped financially by the government.

[The_KC_Godfather]

37 minutes ago, jchapman said:

Do you believe that churches should be tax exempt?

If they are not for profit, yes. Do you think non-profits should be tax exempt?

[pawrestler]

1 hour ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

Women have the right to choose, but their choice is made when they choose to have sex. They know there’s a chance they’ll get pregnant. If you don’t want a child, keep your legs closed. If you want to have sex and get an abortion, cool…pay for it yourself. Don’t use private insurance to drive up my rates or use tax payer dollars. Maybe money out of their own pocket will make them think twice next time. How many people do you think would support abortion if it cost $20k out of pocket?

This is just the social contract. People without kids pay for local schools. People who don’t drink soda subsidize the dental insurance of those who do. People who don’t eat meat subsidize ranchers and those who do. People who don’t give a shit about football have their taxes go to a new stadium. 

Sometimes you pay for things that don’t benefit you directly because they benefit society as a whole or enough people like it or we’ve decided we can’t or shouldn’t regulate people to that extent. 

If you’re so worried about who pays for an abortion maybe the guy who had sex with the women you’re calling whores can pay for it? He also probably knows sex can result in a pregnancy. 
 

[The_KC_Godfather]

9 minutes ago, pawrestler said:

This is just the social contract. People without kids pay for local schools. People who don’t drink soda subsidize the dental insurance of those who do. People who don’t eat meat subsidize ranchers and those who do. People who don’t give a shit about football have their taxes go to a new stadium. 

Sometimes you pay for things that don’t benefit you directly because they benefit society as a whole or enough people like it or we’ve decided we can’t or shouldn’t regulate people to that extent. 

If you’re so worried about who pays for an abortion maybe the guy who had sex with the women you’re calling whores can pay for it? He also probably knows sex can result in a pregnancy. 
 

I agree that the men should pay half the cost, no doubt. I didn’t mean to imply that the men are not at fault…if they’re having one night stands with random women, they’re whores too. Replace the word whore with whatever terminology you prefer.

I get your point, but to me, there’s a big difference between funding schools as a society and funding after-the-fact birth control. Kids have to be educated or we’ll fall into Idiocracy. People don’t have to have one night stands or be reckless with contraception.

Funding of a football stadium with tax dollars is also ridiculous, in my opinion, but you also have the choice to live in that county or state where your tax dollars go towards it. That’s why local government should decide vs. federal…gives you the opportunity to move if you don’t like it.

[wrestle87]

This is an astonishing debate, but I really don’t think it can be had enough, bc puberty sure as heck isn’t stopping anytime soon.

How do you work around the notion that: 1) bad things happen, and people who are pregnant as a result of these terrible things are still required to have that child in some states?

2) Reproductive capability occurs ~ a full decade before feasible parenthood in our society today?

Also, I definitely expect we will see businesses and homebuyers voting with their feet, lots of these anti-abortion laws have been on the books ready to go into affect since roe v. wade first came down.  This is a reality that is going to really drag down a lot of different states.  You will see major divestment from most of the population 40 and under.

[whaletail]

5 hours ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

Laugh away…I don’t see anything funny about my statement. Clearly you’re intellectually superior to everyone here so I’m sure you’ll enlighten me.

Women have the right to choose, but their choice is made when they choose to have sex. They know there’s a chance they’ll get pregnant. If you don’t want a child, keep your legs closed. If you want to have sex and get an abortion, cool…pay for it yourself. Don’t use private insurance to drive up my rates or use tax payer dollars. Maybe money out of their own pocket will make them think twice next time. How many people do you think would support abortion if it cost $20k out of pocket?

The key point is they have a choice up front. If you don’t have a choice (rape), then you should absolutely be helped financially by the government.

Apologies for the laughing comment.  It was unnecessarily obnoxious.

 

 

 

Edited February 7 by whaletail

[jchapman]

5 hours ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

If they are not for profit, yes. Do you think non-profits should be tax exempt?

You have a problem with your “hard earned” money going towards something you don’t believe in (healthcare/abortion). Yet, you don’t have a problem with other people’s hard earned money subsidizing public services for something they might not believe in (churches).

[ionel]

4 hours ago, pawrestler said:

 People who don’t eat meat subsidize ranchers and those who do.
 

How do people that don't eat meat subsidize ranchers?  

[The_KC_Godfather]

19 minutes ago, jchapman said:

You have a problem with your “hard earned” money going towards something you don’t believe in (healthcare/abortion). Yet, you don’t have a problem with other people’s hard earned money subsidizing public services for something they might not believe in (churches).

Nice setup. However, you asked if I support them being tax exempt. There’s a difference between being tax exempt and tax money going to them. One takes money out of my pocket and the other doesn’t. I support them being tax exempt just like I support my annual donations to St. Jude being tax exempt. Why should a non-profit pay taxes on money that is donated (which is post-tax income from the person who donated)? They go through a vetting process to be non-profit and tax exempt just like other non-profits. There’s no difference. You may not agree with it, and it’s completely fine to not agree… but if they’re spending donated money on something that doesn’t generate a profit, I don’t see harm in it. If you personally choose not to donate (again…you have the choice, you don’t with taxes), then how does it harm you or affect your personal finances? The answer is, it doesn’t.

Edited February 7 by The_KC_Godfather

[pawrestler]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

How do people that don't eat meat subsidize ranchers?  

Write offs for live stock and their feed, insurance, the acreage itself, grazing on public land, etc. The US gov massively subsidizes the meat industry overall. 

[ionel]

Just now, pawrestler said:

Write offs for live stock and their feed, insurance, the acreage itself, grazing on public land, etc. The US gov massively subsidizes the meat industry overall. 

What write offs?  Ranchers pay for their feed and insurance.  Most are grazing private land but when public they lease the land, the grazing also benefits they land.  I see no subsidy from non meat folk. 

[pawrestler]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

What write offs?  Ranchers pay for their feed and insurance.  Most are grazing private land but when public they lease the land, the grazing also benefits they land.  I see no subsidy from non meat folk. 

Yes and then they can write it off on taxes. That is a subsidy. 
 

https://www.keepertax.com/tax-write-offs/farmer#:~:text=The cost of livestock%2C like,be deducted on your taxes.&text=Food to feed livestock on the farm is considered tax-deductible.&text=Write off seeds and plants you purchase to grow and harvest.&text=Small supplies like shovels and,to farm are tax-deductible.

[pawrestler]

30 minutes ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

Nice setup. However, you asked if I support them being tax exempt. There’s a difference between being tax exempt and tax money going to them. One takes money out of my pocket and the other doesn’t. I support them being tax exempt just like I support my annual donations to St. Jude being tax exempt. Why should a non-profit pay taxes on money that is donated (which is post-tax income from the person who donated)? They go through a vetting process to be non-profit and tax exempt just like other non-profits. There’s no difference.

If a city town whatever needs $X in property tax to run, and there are 10 even sized properties to make it easy you’d split it X/10. But if one like a church is exempt you now split it X/9, so it is coming out of your wallet 

[ionel]

2 minutes ago, pawrestler said:

Yes and then they can write it off on taxes. That is a subsidy. 
 

https://www.keepertax.com/tax-write-offs/farmer#:~:text=The cost of livestock%2C like,be deducted on your taxes.&text=Food to feed livestock on the farm is considered tax-deductible.&text=Write off seeds and plants you purchase to grow and harvest.&text=Small supplies like shovels and,to farm are tax-deductible.

Every business gets business expense writeoffs that's just part of the tax code, we don't tax revenue (except via local & state sales tax) we tax income.  Non meat eaters aren't subsidizing..  

[pawrestler]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Every business gets business expense writeoffs that's just part of the tax code, we don't tax revenue (except via local & state sales tax) we tax income.  Non meat eaters aren't subsidizing..  

I think you might be missing my point overall but it’s not a big enough deal to go back and forth here

[GreatWhiteNorth]

On 12/23/2023 at 7:47 AM, Jimmy Cinnabon said:

He's currently weighing 205 so he's definitely going 197 and not heavyweight.  Brooks vs Ferrari will be an epic final.  Who is favored?

Ummm... yep, we all know the answer to that question.

The good news is that the recent conversation is sooo much better than the OP.

Hey @Husker_Du, you dork, you've actually put together a decent place for conversation. Not bad.

Edited February 7 by GreatWhiteNorth

[macwoodfleet]

10 hours ago, The_KC_Godfather said:

Nailed it.

My problem with abortion (other than I disagree with it morally, but that's my opinion...not something others should care about or follow) is that tax payer money (ie. money I worked hard for) goes towards supporting it. If you want to sleep around and not use protection, then why should I pay for your abortion if you don't want a kid??  That's the point of leaving it to the states.  If you want to live in a state and have your tax dollars go towards someone who whore's around and is too stupid to not use protection (instead of tax dollars going to, say, providing free lunch to underprivileged kids), fine. I choose to not live in a state like that.  Any federal funding for planned parenthood or the like should be completely out of bounds.

Federal funding cannot be used for abortions. Hyde Amendment. Pretty baseline stuff here 

[The_KC_Godfather]

44 minutes ago, macwoodfleet said:

Federal funding cannot be used for abortions. Hyde Amendment. Pretty baseline stuff here 

Yet the federal government still funds Planned Parenthood....

Planned Parenthood received $1.78 billion in taxpayer funds between fiscal years 2019 and 2021 — including $90 million in small-business loans during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new government report.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the nation’s largest abortion provider — received $1.54 billion in direct payments from Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday.

The abortion giant also got $148 million through Department of Health and Human Services grants or agreements and $90 million through Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

[The_KC_Godfather]

1 hour ago, pawrestler said:

If a city town whatever needs $X in property tax to run, and there are 10 even sized properties to make it easy you’d split it X/10. But if one like a church is exempt you now split it X/9, so it is coming out of your wallet 

You're comparing apples to oranges; land/properties are segregated based on their use (ie. residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, non-profit, etc.), and each has its own tax accountability. They receive different subsidies or tax breaks depending on what they're zoned for. Let's take church out of it...let's say that 1/10th of your proposal is a non-profit home for orphans. Should they be taxed when they have zero income? Again, the money being "written off" has already been taxed. Didn't see that you answered that question about non-profits...

Edited February 7 by The_KC_Godfather