Subj : Mathew 25:31 etc To : BOB KLAHN From : TIM RICHARDSON Date : Wed May 29 2013 08:55:00 On 05-28-13, BOB KLAHN said to JEFF BINKLEY: BK>> Since I am a pro-life Catholic, all abortions are atrocities to BK>> me. Since I am a pro-life Catholic, letting that child die for BK>> lack or medical care, or nutrition, or a safe and warm home, or BK>> suffer for lack of any of the above is an atrocity to me. Ah.....you're *Catholic*. So then...you are a believer in no physical relations prior to marriage. Which means there aren't any `out-of-wedlock' pregnancies to begin with. And (you've CLAIMED in the past) you are also for personal responsibility, which includes self-sufficiency. People taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. Where does anyone get the notion that we (the taxpayers) owe anything to a woman who won't either abstain from risky sexual behavior she knows may very well cause a pregnancy, or at least supply herself with the readily-available means of pregnancy prevention that can be had over-the-counter? If she couldn't be responsible enough to prevent a pregnancy....why does the taxpayer become responsible for a situation SHE didn't have the responsibility to prevent in the first p[lace! And by the way....women don't impregnate themselves. Where the `father' of this out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Why is the taxpayer's financial responsibilty greater than his? If a woman wants to engage in un-wedded physical relations and can't afford the preventive...why doesn't her partner provide it? I don't see the taxpayers suddenly being conferred with responsibility automatically, because neither the mother NOR the father had the intellect to consider the possible consequences of what they were doing. At what point does the taxpayers' financial responsibility come into play? JB> Then you have the right to take every dime you earn and give it to JB> your Catholic Church to solve the problem. You should not think JB> because you think you and your church have the moral high ground, you JB> any right to my money, including money I am forced to pay to the JB> governments, claiming control over me. BK>Which means you are an anarchist, since you seem to think you BK>shouldn't have to pay anything to the government. No such thing. Its like a person owning a house and property they pay taxes on every year, also having to pay the taxes on their neighbor's house and property because that neighbor didn't have the personal responsibity to make sure they could afford the on-going costs when they made the purchase in the first place. BK>When your president took this country into a war for oil and BK>votes he spent my money to cause the deaths of an estimated BK>100,000 innocent people directly, and an unknown but ever BK>larger number indirectly. Leaving aside the silliness about the `oil and votes' (neither was involved. Iraq's oil doesn't benefit this country today any more than it did back then, and the votes went to the opposite party, or are you forgetting the house went democrat AFTER the Iraq invasion?), your indignation over `war' has a false note to it. A mere trifle of your sophistic attempt to `blame the other guy'. I was not very comfortable with the invasion of Iraq, as I imagine many other conservative-minded people weren't. My thoughts all along were that we should have concentrated on Afghanistan, and taking the Taliban to task until they themselves gave bin Laden up to American justice. And by `taking the Taliban to task' I mean we should have pounded them with ordnance until they gave bin Laden up. Starting with a day and hour we knew their government would be in session, being visited by a series of missiles armed with high explosives. The idea being to take out their entire government, or as many as were present in their parliament or whatever equivalent they have. Make the statement as G.W. Bush did that, `you will either give him up...or you will share his fate'....give a reasonable length of time to allow compliance (about a month), and if no compliance is met take out their whole government with a couple of missiles. And do a repeat every time their government is discovered to have a meeting set to take place. Not one single American troop should have set foot in Afghanistan. Thats what cruise missiles are for. And before you crank up your false outrage and your false accusations of `how pitiless I am'....the blood of over three thousand innocent people cry from the grave for vengeance. My thoughts are more with those innocents and will not be wasted on any of your false claims of outrage. BK>You didn't seem to have a problem with BK>that, so I'll do my best not to worry about how you feel about BK>your money going to support the poor and the helpless and esp BK>the infants who are without medical care and adequate nutrition BK>without the government policies. Those are buzz-words and feel-good notions from out of thin air. The government exercises confiscatory tax power, and instead of using that money for the actual `common good'...the `common defense'...they spread it into areas it was never intended. The words "....to promote the general welfare..." had nothing whatever to do with giving people a regular income to sit home and do nothing year after year. Those words were intended to cover things like defense, infrastructure....etc etc, and did not even imply `give-aways' the politicians applied them as. (One politician recently made the suggestion that people on the InterNet aren't covered by the First Amendment). The skewed view of the Constitution came under a liberal interpretation of that document that would have the Founders turning in their graves! That document is the basis on which the majority of our law and governance is built. It has become distorted and stretched to a point of almost being meaningless. Which is probably why the present occupant of the White House ignores it so often. BK>Yes, I claim the right to demand the government provide for the BK>poor and the helpless, under the basic social contract. You can BK>always move to somewhere like Saudi Arabia where the rich get it BK>all, or even more so Bangladesh where life is cheap. On the other hand (and far more preferable) YOU could move to a place where taxes on those who work hard and succeed are almost 100% of what they earn (notice the word *earn*), all the `freebies' that are so dear to your heart are a reality, and utopia reigns supreme! Hmmm.....like England, France, Greece.... --- *Durango b301 #PE* * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140) .