Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You suffer from the derangement that a "business" starts off "wealthy" and can afford to pay top dollar with top benefits. Many small businesses provide services at an affordable price for the community where they do business. If they raise their prices, they either go out of business or move to a more affluent community. To saddle them with the responsibility of keeping workers that cannot stay on the job for 3 months out of 12, is a great inconvenience that could cripple the business, especially in hard times. As businesses grow, and become more successful, they can afford to hire the more productive worker, and pay to keep them, including benefits. Each person in the USA has a choice of jobs, and can choose to take a better job or one with better benefits. To force a small business to compete with the same benefits as a larger company/corporation is to force the small business out of business and to support the monopoly of the larger corporations and support "corporate greed".
I noticed you did not comment on young people waiting to get married, and then have children with a plan in mind of how the finances would be thru the pregnancy and afterwards. Why is it that liberals don't ever want to "promote" these "choices"?
The guy didn't perform abortions. He delivered a live baby and THEN killed it while it was still alive. That is murder. I don't know how his lawyers could say he should go free, that he did nothing wrong - do they think it should be okay for a so called doctor to do what he did?
Ah, so you believe in the "Magic Vagina" theory. That a "lump of flesh" turns into a human all at once by passing through the magic vagina. Killing prior to passage is sacred and good, after passage, even mere seconds later, is murder...
The "logic" of pro-aborts is a wonder to behold.
Odd how the kid who shot a pregnant woman on the bus in Boston got charged with murder for the killing of the unborn child.
The mother survived.
How could he murder something that didnt exist?
How could douglas Kennedy endanger his non existent child?
[
Douglas Kennedy, the son of bobby Kennedy.
He was all over your liberal media after being attacked by two murderous union nurses pushed him and his 2 day old down the stairs in an NY hospital.
An attempted abortion.
He was charged with child endangerment for refusing to hand the child over for termination.
How can you endanger that which doseny exist?
You choose to have sex. There are inexpensive ways to AVOID pregnancy. Once you are pregnant (that you chose to do the act, knowing the results), killing the child is not a life saving procedure in 99.99% of cases. Quit pretending you give a shit about women that will have medical problems as a RESULT of abortion (more prone to some types of cancer, more prone to mental illnesses, etc). Just accept the fact that you get off on seeing a person at their most vulnerable point being "terminated".
You suffer from the derangement that a "business" starts off "wealthy" and can afford to pay top dollar with top benefits. Many small businesses provide services at an affordable price for the community where they do business. If they raise their prices, they either go out of business or move to a more affluent community. To saddle them with the responsibility of keeping workers that cannot stay on the job for 3 months out of 12, is a great inconvenience that could cripple the business, especially in hard times. As businesses grow, and become more successful, they can afford to hire the more productive worker, and pay to keep them, including benefits. Each person in the USA has a choice of jobs, and can choose to take a better job or one with better benefits. To force a small business to compete with the same benefits as a larger company/corporation is to force the small business out of business and to support the monopoly of the larger corporations and support "corporate greed".
So essentially... meh, you're all for the fetuses until they impose on a businessman's ability to make a profit. Okay. I'll get the vaccuum hose ready.
I noticed you did not comment on young people waiting to get married, and then have children with a plan in mind of how the finances would be thru the pregnancy and afterwards. Why is it that liberals don't ever want to "promote" these "choices"?
No, I don't comment on ANYONE telling ANYONE how to live their lives. Because honestly, what I've usually found is the people given the advice pretty much have messed up their own lives so badly they are projecting on everyone else.
Young people ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX! Long before they ever get married.
You choose to have sex. There are inexpensive ways to AVOID pregnancy. Once you are pregnant (that you chose to do the act, knowing the results), killing the child is not a life saving procedure in 99.99% of cases. Quit pretending you give a shit about women that will have medical problems as a RESULT of abortion (more prone to some types of cancer, more prone to mental illnesses, etc). Just accept the fact that you get off on seeing a person at their most vulnerable point being "terminated".
Quit pretending that you give a shit about women because we know you don't give a fuck about women. They are nothing more than baby making slaves to you people.
[
It is about "choice". If you choose to have sex, you should choose to have sex with a person that will be a responsible father to the possible child. If you don't "want" a child, prepare, prepare, and prevent. Once you get pregnant, you should be prepared, prepared, and ready. If you are not "ready", then don't have sex, or have sex where you cannot get pregnant taking preventative measures (know that the person you lay down with will be sharing all the previous lovers' germs with you also, that could be passed to your children of the future, if you want them, and if you are having sex, there is a CHANCE you will get pregnant). To tell an employer that they are responsible for your health care, because you are now pregnant shows very poor planning (being prepared).
If you want your "employer" to cover the cost of child birth and "family leave" then get a job with such an employer "before" you choose to do actions that could cause a pregnancy. There are plenty of employers that are willing to do that (usually the job is not as interesting, and may pay less, due to the amount of benefits not offered by smaller businesses), so there is really no excuse to blame the employer. Many people will plan for child birth, without insurance. They figure out what it will cost, and make payments to the doctor in advance or arrangement for a payment plan afterwards. The "wife" may quit her job (take unpaid "leave"), until the parents "choose" to make arrangements for another to care for the child, so the wife can go back to work, possibly lasting years.
[
Again, I fail to see why encouraging young people to make the "best" choices regarding their sex life is such an issue with liberals (you have no problem telling them not to smoke, not to live a sedimentary life, how many times a week they should exercise, and what foods they should not eat, how much they should drink of "sugary drinks"). Why is that? You want to claim that you don't want to interfere with peoples' lives, but you do, in EVERY other area of their lives, except sex. In that area, you "preach" that people have no control over themselves when it comes to sex, and everyone should just "accept" that as a "fact".
Maybe children wouldn't be having sex if adults were honest about the consequences of having casual sex or having a child with a man that you do not respect and do not want involved in your child's life, how hard it is to raise a child with two parents that care, never mind one, with no additional support; how that child is more likely to end up living in poverty, getting into trouble, and not graduating high school, because someone told you that sex would be fun, and you would not get pregnant....
According to Barbera Boxer it is.[
Douglas Kennedy, the son of bobby Kennedy.
He was all over your liberal media after being attacked by two murderous union nurses pushed him and his 2 day old down the stairs in an NY hospital.
An attempted abortion.
He was charged with child endangerment for refusing to hand the child over for termination.
How can you endanger that which doseny exist?
Well, if it was a two-day old, it wasn't a fetus... or an abortion. But honestly, the whole story sounds a little crazy...
And looking at the actual story, it is.
Nurses Will Likely Sue Douglas Kennedy, Attorney Says - ABC News
Constitutional protections for 'life' come into effect only when the child gets home from hospital.
If you disagree with one of the liberal masters you will be subjected to liberal attack and abuse.
According to Barbera Boxer it is.Well, if it was a two-day old, it wasn't a fetus... or an abortion. But honestly, the whole story sounds a little crazy...
And looking at the actual story, it is.
Nurses Will Likely Sue Douglas Kennedy, Attorney Says - ABC News
Constitutional protections for 'life' come into effect only when the child gets home from hospital.
If you disagree with one of the liberal masters you will be subjected to liberal attack and abuse.
Does your doctor know you are off your medication?
[
It is about "choice". If you choose to have sex, you should choose to have sex with a person that will be a responsible father to the possible child. If you don't "want" a child, prepare, prepare, and prevent. Once you get pregnant, you should be prepared, prepared, and ready. If you are not "ready", then don't have sex, or have sex where you cannot get pregnant taking preventative measures (know that the person you lay down with will be sharing all the previous lovers' germs with you also, that could be passed to your children of the future, if you want them, and if you are having sex, there is a CHANCE you will get pregnant). To tell an employer that they are responsible for your health care, because you are now pregnant shows very poor planning (being prepared).
Blah, blah, blah...
Okay, you see, here's the thing. Because America INSISTED that health care be handled through employers rather than a single-payer universal system, yeah, that DOES obligate employers.
And frankly, I really have to honestly wonder what kind of person you are that you think that people can just totally control their sexual urges. "Ummm, before we go to bed, can I run a credit check on you?"
You work on the bizarre assumption that these couples who are waiting a couple years into the marriage to have a baby are really not having sex. Ummmm... nope. they are using contraception, and when contraception fails, they have abortions. About 16% of abortions are performed on married women.If you want your "employer" to cover the cost of child birth and "family leave" then get a job with such an employer "before" you choose to do actions that could cause a pregnancy. There are plenty of employers that are willing to do that (usually the job is not as interesting, and may pay less, due to the amount of benefits not offered by smaller businesses), so there is really no excuse to blame the employer. Many people will plan for child birth, without insurance. They figure out what it will cost, and make payments to the doctor in advance or arrangement for a payment plan afterwards. The "wife" may quit her job (take unpaid "leave"), until the parents "choose" to make arrangements for another to care for the child, so the wife can go back to work, possibly lasting years.
To your other "point", the two women I worked with who were fired by my douchebag boss probably had good reason to think that they'd be covered.
[
Again, I fail to see why encouraging young people to make the "best" choices regarding their sex life is such an issue with liberals (you have no problem telling them not to smoke, not to live a sedimentary life, how many times a week they should exercise, and what foods they should not eat, how much they should drink of "sugary drinks"). Why is that? You want to claim that you don't want to interfere with peoples' lives, but you do, in EVERY other area of their lives, except sex. In that area, you "preach" that people have no control over themselves when it comes to sex, and everyone should just "accept" that as a "fact".
Big difference between telling someone they shouldn't do something (which liberals spends a lot of money teaching safe sex and contraception to prevent abortions. More than worthless ass absitence only education.) and trying to outlaw something. If we were trying to BAN smoking, have required excercise, etc... you might be making a valid analogy.
You jokers just don't want to tell people abortion is a bad idea (which I would kind of agree with), but that they can't have them, even if they were raped or they are about to give birth to a severely deformed child.
Maybe children wouldn't be having sex if adults were honest about the consequences of having casual sex or having a child with a man that you do not respect and do not want involved in your child's life, how hard it is to raise a child with two parents that care, never mind one, with no additional support; how that child is more likely to end up living in poverty, getting into trouble, and not graduating high school, because someone told you that sex would be fun, and you would not get pregnant....
blah, blah, blah...
You don't think that we already don't spend BILLIONS telling kids that?
And at the end of the day, it goes in one ear and out the other. The problem with most adults is that they either forget what they were like as teens or they remember all too well....
Who the hell is Douglas Kennedy.
By the way, I think Fetal Murder statues are BULLSHIT.
[
It is about "choice". If you choose to have sex, you should choose to have sex with a person that will be a responsible father to the possible child. If you don't "want" a child, prepare, prepare, and prevent. Once you get pregnant, you should be prepared, prepared, and ready. If you are not "ready", then don't have sex, or have sex where you cannot get pregnant taking preventative measures (know that the person you lay down with will be sharing all the previous lovers' germs with you also, that could be passed to your children of the future, if you want them, and if you are having sex, there is a CHANCE you will get pregnant). To tell an employer that they are responsible for your health care, because you are now pregnant shows very poor planning (being prepared).
Blah, blah, blah...
Okay, you see, here's the thing. Because America INSISTED that health care be handled through employers rather than a single-payer universal system, yeah, that DOES obligate employers.
And frankly, I really have to honestly wonder what kind of person you are that you think that people can just totally control their sexual urges. "Ummm, before we go to bed, can I run a credit check on you?"
If you want your "employer" to cover the cost of child birth and "family leave" then get a job with such an employer "before" you choose to do actions that could cause a pregnancy. There are plenty of employers that are willing to do that (usually the job is not as interesting, and may pay less, due to the amount of benefits not offered by smaller businesses), so there is really no excuse to blame the employer. Many people will plan for child birth, without insurance. They figure out what it will cost, and make payments to the doctor in advance or arrangement for a payment plan afterwards. The "wife" may quit her job (take unpaid "leave"), until the parents "choose" to make arrangements for another to care for the child, so the wife can go back to work, possibly lasting years.
You work on the bizarre assumption that these couples who are waiting a couple years into the marriage to have a baby are really not having sex. Ummmm... nope. they are using contraception, and when contraception fails, they have abortions. About 16% of abortions are performed on married women.
To your other "point", the two women I worked with who were fired by my douchebag boss probably had good reason to think that they'd be covered.
[
Again, I fail to see why encouraging young people to make the "best" choices regarding their sex life is such an issue with liberals (you have no problem telling them not to smoke, not to live a sedimentary life, how many times a week they should exercise, and what foods they should not eat, how much they should drink of "sugary drinks"). Why is that? You want to claim that you don't want to interfere with peoples' lives, but you do, in EVERY other area of their lives, except sex. In that area, you "preach" that people have no control over themselves when it comes to sex, and everyone should just "accept" that as a "fact".
Big difference between telling someone they shouldn't do something (which liberals spends a lot of money teaching safe sex and contraception to prevent abortions. More than worthless ass absitence only education.) and trying to outlaw something. If we were trying to BAN smoking, have required excercise, etc... you might be making a valid analogy.
You jokers just don't want to tell people abortion is a bad idea (which I would kind of agree with), but that they can't have them, even if they were raped or they are about to give birth to a severely deformed child.
Maybe children wouldn't be having sex if adults were honest about the consequences of having casual sex or having a child with a man that you do not respect and do not want involved in your child's life, how hard it is to raise a child with two parents that care, never mind one, with no additional support; how that child is more likely to end up living in poverty, getting into trouble, and not graduating high school, because someone told you that sex would be fun, and you would not get pregnant....
blah, blah, blah...
You don't think that we already don't spend BILLIONS telling kids that?
And at the end of the day, it goes in one ear and out the other. The problem with most adults is that they either forget what they were like as teens or they remember all too well....
[
The problem with most adults is they listen to perverts like you.
At the end of the day, you tell your children that part of being responsible is treating women with respect, and not fucking indiscriminately. Don't screw if you don't think you're up for a kid, because ultimately, that is the risk you're taking.When you think you are able and when you are willing to deal with that possibility, then go for it.
[
Blah, blah, blah: people can control every aspect of their lives, EXCEPT SEX, blah, blah, blah, we teach them how to have sex from an early age without teaching them the consequences (and that is the "same" as teaching them morals and that they need to be responsible), blah, blah, blah, we don't know why the STD rates are sky rocketing, blah, blah, blah, everyone should be "sexually free" with no inhibitions at all, blah, blah, blah, we can't understand why people have no respect for life anymore, blah, blah, blah, reject authority and any traditional values (that built the greatest country in the history of the planet), blah, blah, blah
[
I understand. I am sorry you choose to pick out small portions of my values to ridicule. I will try to do better, than expect any person that likes abortion will ever find fault in the butchery that takes place in abortion mills, or consider the greed and wealth that is based on the murder of children. I can also understand how these same people will ignore that the abortion mills will not give out birth control without charging some steep monies for doctors' visits, first (expensive birth control means they are more likely to end up pregnant again, and have multiple abortions, bottom line!). I guess if you support that kind of murder of the most innocent, that would have to make you, "you", a monster, and most abortion supporters, only care that they can look in the mirror in the morning and "see" a good person looking back at them. If they had the pictures of the babies bodies, mutilated, acid burned, etc posted in their bathroom mirrors, I don't think many of them could keep up the act. It is perfectly okay that people do that to babies, as long as they don't have to see it.
Liberal policies on sex education.
Like the full and well established liberal policies in the UK ?
You know, far more liberal than the USA!!
Why then does the UK have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the western world?
The UK has free and accessible abortions, yet still has more teen mothers than any country in the western world.
Back to the basics!!
Basically liberalism is enforcing policies that have failed repeatedly in other places.
Repeating the same action hoping for a different result is, according to Albert Einstein, the definition of insanity.
[
Sex education is part of the UKs national curriculum, has been for over 40 years.
I sat through sex Ed lessons from age 11, knew how to use a condom, where to get one ( free in several places around the school, or at my drs office, town hall, public library or the government controlled local hospital.
The UK figures cannot be trusted.
I lived in the UK for 33 years, the far left government cannot be trusted.
I saw dozens of girls in my high school get pregnant despite the hours of sex Ed.
Few took advantage of the free abortions available in confidence to minors.
Your ideas have failed elsewhere.
All liberal ideas have failed elsewhere.
Brings us back to Einsteins theory of insanity.
Good grief, go to bed and sleep it off, weirdo.
Meanwhile, inner city kids are pounded with sex ed from the moment their moms put them out to score crack for them. Yet they still get pregnant at a disproportionate rate. Go figure. Seems like the earlier you sexualize them, the more likely they are to get knocked up. Shocking.
