Stupak: Dems told me they want to fund abortions because more kids mean higher health-care costs; Update: Waxman?
posted at 4:37 pm on March 12, 2010 by Allahpundit
I don’t quite believe it, although that’s partly because I don’t want to believe it. It’s the abortion equivalent of death panels, essentially. It’s so sinister, and so perfectly matches the most ogrish caricatures of the pro-choice left, that it’s almost too bad to check. It’d be like Ron Paul claiming that pro-war Republicans told him to vote for Iraq because they were dying to get their hands on all that oil. They simply can’t be this cold-blooded.
Well, actually … sure they can. But would they cop to it?
Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”…
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”
Let’s think about this. Imagine you’re a pro-choice Democrat. You know Stupak is passionately opposed to funding abortion. You know he’s willing to chat with any conservative media outlet that’ll have him. You also know that Pelosi’s coalition is extremely fragile. Knowing all that, why would you hand him a political grenade this explosive? You’re not going to flip him; you know he’s going to run to NRO or Fox News to tell them what you said; and you know that it’s going to electrify opposition to the bill. Now imagine that you’re Stupak. You’ve been cut out of negotiations. Your bloc is fracturing. You need something to put it back together. Tossing this out there will have every anti-abortion advocacy group in America pounding on the doors of pro-life Dems on Monday to make sure they vote the right way. I don’t want to call the guy a liar — he’s been admirably constant under incredible pressure — but given the scenario I’ve presented, which is more likely to be true? That some sub-moronic pro-choicer really said this to him or that he’s claiming they did to resuscitate opposition to Reid’s bill? Can he give us the name, at least, of one of the Democrats who said it? (Prime suspect!)
For what it’s worth, Open Left claims there are now at least four members of the Stupak bloc who are suddenly undecided on the bill. Ace says he heard a report on Fox News earlier that Pelosi was … four votes short. Gulp.
Update: Another possible reason for skepticism: Universal health care may mean fewer abortions.
Update: Via Philip Klein, a snippet from a radio interview Stupak gave this morning. He says Waxman told him “we want to pay for abortions,” but he doesn’t give a reason. As far as I know, though, Waxman and Hoyer are the two Democrats in the leadership he’s been dealing with the most, so if someone really did say this, it’s likely one of them. And Waxman’s considerably further left than Hoyer is.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I was looking for that myself. She was on meet the press last year and said something to the effect that abortions would keep health care costs down.
The thing is these people have revealed themselves time and again but until lately no one took them seriously. I caught it then and it doesn’t surprise me now.
katy on March 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Actually, it does, but if you really think it doesn’t, make the argument as to how it doesn’t. Also, make the argument in the context of how the anecdotal evidence cited in the article supports the writer’s view in a more valid way than the link cited above supports that posters view.
mwdiver on March 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Are you going to PMS through yet another thread?
Many people have large families because they like children, not use them as a money making 4-H project.
katy the mean old lady on March 12, 2010 at 5:43 PM
Maybe nobody thought then that they’d do something this stupid! I mean really, how do they expect to get this idea past childed taxpayers without causing a royal ruckus?
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:44 PM
Yes, but those families’ kids will grow up and pay into social security and medicare, unlike those who have no kids.
Face it, you just hate children and large families. After all, you think it’s okay for deadbeat dads to skip supporting their own children, loser.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM
Gender requirements at these schools will lead to a reduced workforce of doctors because more female doctors than male go parttime when they are of childbearing years. This would exacerbate the shortage of doctors. Though I guess if we have mandatory abortions female doctors will have to give up child bearing for the good of society.
txmomof6 on March 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM
You are an idiot. Stupak is a HIM not a HER.
I known plenty of Christians who responsibly limit the number of children they have to the number they can afford.
Please provide PROOF that muslims and Christians have multiple children, willy-nilly, and suck the government teat dry to help pay the bills. I know none.
ladyingray on March 12, 2010 at 5:47 PM
How about some links or sources to back up your outrageous statements?
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Hmmmm, abortions to cut health care cost. Silly me, I always believed Maggie Sanger that it was a way to “weed the fit from the unfit”.
chief on March 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Can you site examples of people with large families getting paid to have large families? I’d love to read more about this. As I come from a large family, and my parents never got paid to have a large family.
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM
After something similar to a “one child per family” policy is enforced,
will we see people in blue jumpsuits going to work on bicycles ?
Will those who implement the healthscare for the politburo also arrest us to harvest our organs ? Since they will have our DNA ? And the elite VIPs will really really need those organs for themselves ?
macncheez on March 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Wow, that was stupendously dumb, not the least of which is that Stupak is a ‘he’. I honestly am not sure how to respond to the rest of the stupidity in that comment.
Midas on March 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM
What I find most galling in all of this is….it’s ok for the government to spend millions on trials for terrorists, but God forbid someone have a baby? It truly shows the where the mindset of the liberal really is.
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 5:52 PM
LOL
*high five*
Midas on March 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM
Check.
Nancy Pelosi may be one of Stupak’s sources. Not only Stupak, of course, but the rest of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvdwkENbeE0&feature=related
Tuning Spork on March 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM
It doesn’t because the majority of European countries perform abortion on request. Look at the map. How does that make them more “restrictive” than the US?
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 5:53 PM
You really need sources to prove that the childed get all manner of tax benefits? What next? Shall I have to go find some ‘evidence’ on certified wingnut sites to prove gravity exists to you?
Does it really take that much brainpower to realize public schools, programs like WIC, etc. are funded by tax dollars?
For starters:
Child Tax Benefits
http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/birth.html
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Hey, Dark-Star –
We’re all waiting to see the facts you based your theory on. The teacher has rung the bell. Present your work or receive a failing grade.
kingsjester on March 12, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Large families are not as common as they used to be, however, most of the people I know who are religious and do have lots of kids take care of themselves. They do not ask anyone for anything.
Terrye on March 12, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Oh, please! Prove that Muslims and Christians have lots of kids because they get government benefits.
THAT is what you claimed, weakling.
ladyingray on March 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Your family NEVER went to a public school? NEVER used any kind of public benefit? NEVER accepted a single cent in child tax credits?
Now, your parents likely didn’t have kids specifically for the benefits (only the welfare class does), but you still got them.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Back up your Bible-breeders slur with corresponding data, Scooter.
kingsjester on March 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM
My original statment of FACT was that there are all manner of tax benefits for having kids.
The ‘theory’ is nothing but words put in my mouth by bitter breeders with an axe to grind.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Nazi-nomics.
“Kill them before they become a drag on the system.”
portlandon on March 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM
LOL
*points and laughs*
That is some weak-ass ‘reasoning’ you’re throwing down there, champ.
Midas on March 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM
And how many of those “Bible breeders” use WIC? The ones I know never accepted a government handout in their lives. You are implying that Christian families are living off of government largesse. That’s a lie and you have yet to prove it.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Easy example: the Quiverfree movement. Thank goodness they’re a tiny splinter group.
The most-often used statement I’ve heard is the “be fruitful and multiply” verse, quoted out of context.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM
My parents paid taxes that support the schools. I went to both parochial, and public. While paying tuition at parochial, my parents still paid taxes to support the public schools. And no. No assistance. We took our own lunches, so never benefitted from any lunch program. As far as child tax credits…were those around in the 60′s, and 70′s? If so, I wasn’t aware.
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Those kids contribute to a viable future economy. The entire economic system is based on that. No children means the economy contracts. If you don’t have children you are freeloading off the entire scheme.
sharrukin on March 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Nice try.
*You* threw down the ‘bible-breeders’ bit there; no one put that crap in your mouth.
Midas on March 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM
Strawman.
Anecdotal, unprovable ‘evidence’, and another strawman.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM
So people have large families so they can get a bigger refund on their taxes? Do you have any idea how much it costs to raise a child from birth thru college? Way more than a stupid tax credit or yearly refund.
Try again, putz.
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Terrorists can’t be “controlled”
But babies…. well what are they gonna do ?
Its so ghoulish
macncheez on March 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM
So even a productive, law-abiding citizen who pays into the system for their entire life is merely being a mooch if they don’t have children. Right.
Well, at least that’s not the first time I’ve heard that sneering statement.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Not a dumb question at all. In fact, conservatives have been outbreeding liberals for 30 years:
It’s just a matter of time.
Rovin on March 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Dang. Family guest over, may be a bit between replies.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM
If it’s out of Dark Turd’s mouth, it’s certainly crap.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:03 PM
I’m confused. Your logic appears to be:
Use of tax-funded education and opposition to tax-funded abortion are ideologically-inconsistent positions.
So I should want to both educate children and murder them. RIGHT.
Horrible of me to give birth to multiple children, really. Burden on the society and all. Bloody rotten selfish.
Animator Girl on March 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Well, some of them are, so what? Society as a whole benefits from an educated electorate. I wish some of them were more educated in fact, at least in terms of how our government does and does not work.
Terrye on March 12, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM
oh darn you mean we might get the thread back?
txmomof6 on March 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM
Something tells me, that some people….if they had an open viewing day for abortions at the local Planned Parenthood…..some would be lining up the night before to get in, and watch!
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM
I’m a tad skeptical, since ‘minority’ births are set to outpace whites, and we all know how the Dems pander like crazy to ‘minority’ groups. But I could be wrong – this is anything but an exact science.
http://indianapolisrecorder.com/articles/2010/03/11/news/featured_story/doc4b980c52aee8e311838835.txt
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:05 PM
If a society doesn’t have children it doesn’t have a future.
This is not a terribly complicated idea.
You cannot have one taxpayer supporting five who have retired. Europe is finding out even now that it doesn’t work.
sharrukin on March 12, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Half of my property tax bill goes for public schools. I continue to pay those taxes even though my kids are grown and have fled the nest.
Keep digging.
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 6:06 PM
So says the one who thinks it beneath him/her to provide evidence supporting his/her own blanket statements about people with large families.
Animator Girl on March 12, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Cheap excuse sissy.
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Dang. Family guest over, may be a bit between replies.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:02 PM
Cheap excuse sissy.
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Yeah. Google is your friend….
ladyingray on March 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Pardon me for deferring to a guest, you right-wing elitist. Jewish young man, friend of my brother’s by the name of Michael.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:11 PM
So? LOL, do you think we believe every piece of crap that you utter? If anyone here is an elitist POS, it’s you, and you prove that over and over again on a daily basis.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:12 PM
I am thinking that the child doesn’t have children or a clue what it costs to raise children.
TXMomof3 on March 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I sense racism at work.
CWforFreedom on March 12, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Ghoulish, that’s the only word that comes to my mind.
Ultimately, though, won’t there be more government-funded abortions by women who tend to vote “Democrat?” Aren’t Dems afraid that Republicans will “out-breed” them over the long term?
Okay – I’m back to thinking this whole concept is ghoulish.
Logic on March 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I been reading articles on-line about the Quiverfull movement. I didn’t find any mention of government assistance. Again, Scooter, cite your source.
kingsjester on March 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I=I’ve
kingsjester on March 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM
I don’t know what to make out of this. If Waxman really said that he’s stupid, not that I’d put that pass him.
I haven’t known Stupak to lie much, but I don’t think he’s had that much to lie about. He usually chugs along. It’s odd for me to see him in the headlines suddenly.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Maybe you should consult the catechism. *eyeroll*
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM
I see you still don’t understand what I was trying to say. No matter, that was last night, a different thread.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Problem is, being a Republican isn’t genetically transferred. After the wonderful public education provided by our tax dollars is through with the children, they will be Donk-voting libtards.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Which is why I think this goes much deeper, and much darker then we know. Only the upper echelons of Democrats know the whole of this sordid crap.
I think along this path, if not immediately, eventually, abortions will be mandated to save money. It will be explained as the good for everyone. Ghoulish is an understatement in my opinion. I really do fear for the future of our country. :(
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 6:22 PM
No, I understand that you don’t understand. If you took the time to read the comments here, you might “understand” that Stupak’s claim is not improbable, especially in light of Pelosi’s 2009 interview with Meet the Press, and with Donk policy. But you go right on ahead and pretend that this is one big giant mystery.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:22 PM
Who give’s a rat’s behind, trollboy. And I see you must have offended your friend, because you’re in another thread commenting away.
Knucklehead on March 12, 2010 at 6:23 PM
I didn’t have the time to read over 200 posts to get to that.
It’s not that I don’t deny that they would think that way. They have a strange way of keeping down costs, it’s just the thought that such a thought process would convince Bart Stupak, but once again, Waxman is pretty stupid.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Isn’t that the truth? The other day on Fox news…Peter Doocey was interviewing a few college students, outside the hearings in Austin, over the text book drama. They were upset that conservatives were forcing their version of history into the history books. Meaning, the conservatives wanted to keep the Revolutionary war, and the founding of our nation in, and such figures as Daniel Boone into the history. Liberals want these omitted, and the history that would be taught would start at 1877, to the present. Thomas Edison would be out. People like MaryKay Ash (Makeup mogul) would be in.
And these kids were all for the liberal agenda, and what they said was the truth be put into these text books. I just sat there slack jawed. I couldn’t believe how brainwashed these kids were, and how ignorant of true history they were.
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Nancy Pelosi told the world that this is the point of abortions, reducing costs.
uknowmorethanme on March 12, 2010 at 6:26 PM
He’s just taking his orders from Holder, and Soros. He doesn’t get paid, if he doesn’t slime every thread. lol
capejasmine on March 12, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Cut them some slack. Reagan was a liberal in college too. It’s usually a side effect of having no bills to pay or other responsibilities.
uknowmorethanme on March 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM
What’s so strange about it? It’s the pagan way. From ancient Rome to Communist China – killing the “undesireables” is not an uncommon or strange method to keep down costs. As a matter of fact, it’s more “natural”, because that’s how nature (red in tooth and claw) works. But a Christian people prefer to live supernaturally, rather than naturally, vis a vis human life and morality.
They’re both Donks. If Stupak had an ounce of common sense, he would have left the party that is trying to railroad him. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he isn’t that bright or that “clean”.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Yeah, but Reagan and you and I (I assume) were taught real history, as opposed to this garbage they disseminate these days.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Hopefully, they do enough to turn off Stupak supports and kill the entire bill. However, the administration will cave on whatever is necessary to get the core of the bill through.
In the future there will still be plenty of abortions and yet-another entitlement program that will bring about the end of the US as the dominant world power.
dedalus on March 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM
And that’s the reason why the libtards want to control education and suppress homeschooling or private education. It’s appalling.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM
… wha?
I… don’t know where to start. They have a strange way of reducing costs because they think they can reduce costs by increasing demand. They have a strange way of reducing costs because they think they can mandate lower prices. They have a strange way of reducing costs because they think if we can do what we already have, but harder, things will get better.
And killing babies to reduce costs is certainly an immoral way of looking at it. But I very much disagree with calling that “natural” and distinguishing it from a “supernatural” morality. That, however, is not the topic.
And Stupak is to the left of Snowe. He wouldn’t fit very well in the GOP.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Then you know very little about history and nature. But no worries, you’re not a minority. Most kids your age know little about it too.
So he remains in a party that has a platform which supports unrestricted abortion? Looks like his “pro life” principles don’t run too deep then.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Then I’ll make it the topic.
What does natural mean? What is its relation to the supernatural?
The GOP platform doesn’t fit him either. And he’s fighting quite admirably for the pro-life cause, so I wouldn’t question his principles.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Shouldn’t you be consulting the catechism? It’s a fallen world, and nature is ruthless and amoral. The strong survive while they prey on the weak. Dog eats dog and all that jazz. WTF?
I’ll withhold my judgment on Stupak until this entire episode has closed.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:42 PM
The Democrat party has a strange kind of relationship with unrestricted abortion. On the one hand, supporting it gets them votes. On the other hand, more kids mean more votes to buy 18 years down the road.
However, they’ll keep coming out ahead in this twisted equation so long as they keep incentives coming for both killing and having children. Eliminate the former and the abortion-always crowd will be on them like flies on a dead cow. Eliminate the latter and the Republicans will be more than happy to step in with ‘family-friendly’ policies, if they have an ounce of political sense.
Dark-Star on March 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM
I’m Methodist.
Nature, by my understanding, refers to the ways of the world. I’m very iffy on the idea that there is nature, and then there is supernature. That there are the things that are, and there are the things that supercede those things. Creation is a product of the creator, and thus things that are truly natural are those that are products of him.
It is the killing of the unborn that is unnatural.
And I am very much aware of infanticide in Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as in Communist China.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:46 PM
This is true.
uknowmorethanme on March 12, 2010 at 6:48 PM
It’s going to suck for you when life really starts.
uknowmorethanme on March 12, 2010 at 6:49 PM
It already has.
It’s just that the idea that there is a primordial chaos which must be held back by supernatural force is pagan in nature. It’s the theology of greek tragedy.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Holy Savior … first time I’ve ever seen Allah – a suposedly conservative blogger – go to such lengths to twist logic in defense of Waxman.
I never thought I’d see the day.
Bottom line – it’s a “he said / he said” … and in that kind of a situation I totally give the benefit of the doubt to Stupak.
Nuff said.
HondaV65 on March 12, 2010 at 6:52 PM
You were the one referring to the catechism last night.
LOL, okay. Stay “iffy”. Doesn’t change reality, though.
Huh? You don’t make much sense here.
Yes, but nature is fallen. Remember?
According to God’s intention, yes. But remember, man and nature are FALLEN.
Then why is it so hard to wrap your mind around the “strange” way of killing the unborn or undesireables to keep costs down since there is overwhelming evidence of its practice?
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:54 PM
A lot of Greek thought, including its Orphic sources, made it into the Christian religion via Plato by way of Paul.
dedalus on March 12, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Now you have entered the realm of dishonesty. You keep omitting the fact that I state that nature is FALLEN. And it requires supernatural intervention to be redeemed. I’m done with talking to you, because you are lying now.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM
“Hey, kids cost a lot of money, we can get fully grown up voters, ready to pull the trigger for us…amnesty…bingo”.
…and you thought Obama is dumb.
Schadenfreude on March 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM
Actually, that was Thomas Aquinas.
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM
Democrat Death Panels.
This really sucks. Not only for the unborn babies, but also for all the young working people who have to subsidize abortions just so Obama’s presidency won’t be a failure.
TN Mom on March 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM
The thing is, this country needs millions and millions more babies. Nearly every problem this country faces would be ameliorated by families having a lot of children again.
Metanis on March 12, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Like I said above, you obviously didn’t understand.
But not morality. I’m not going to deny the Fall or Original Sin, but I want to recognize that nature is not by it’s (heh) nature fallen. Which is what was implied by my reading. The law of God is not supernatural imposed upon the natural, it is the natural cleansed by the blood of the lamb.
I don’t recall Paul ever saying anything overtly Platonistic. In fact, he seems to rally against it. But John, and 1 & 2 Peter to my recollection are very hellenic. None of them accept primordial chaos though.
Thomas Aquinas’s big thing was with incorporating Aristotle into Christian thought, not Plato.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 7:06 PM
What I don’t get is that the democrats who want abortion to help protect the enviornment by having fewer babies will turn around and want to absorb millions of new third worlders into the nation. What sense does that make. Already Obama wants to legalize the illegals and that will only bring in millions more of Mexican nationals in the USA. How is that suppose to help to keep everything green? I’ve asked this before but none of the leftists never answer. Any lefty care to give an answer.
garydt on March 12, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Aquinas reconciled Aristotle with Christian thought in the late middle ages, after Aristotle’s writings were recovered and translated.
Earlier Christians, such as Augustine, were greatly influenced by Plato.
Saint Paul, being from Tarsus, would have been educated in an environment suffused with Platonic thought.
dedalus on March 12, 2010 at 7:08 PM
The leftists hate the west. They hate everything about it and want to see every facet deconstructed or corrupted.
The rest of their blather is just one excuse after another as to why we should help them do it.
sharrukin on March 12, 2010 at 7:12 PM
I had this very thought a while back:
OBAMA: All the Compassion of a Logan’s Run Sandman, with NONE of the Good looks!
Mutnodjmet on March 12, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Off topic:Dark Star, I have what some consider a large family. I have 4 children thus there are 6 of us (yes I am married to their father). I have many friends that have 3 or more children and none of us are on government help. I also homeschool, so I not only pay for my childrens education (ie: books, supplies) but also through taxes I pay for publicly educated children. I pay my taxes and do not complain as do the other families I know with 3 or more children. I know that there are those of the female species that do have children for different reasons. But please do not ‘group’ large families together when there are those that are willing to have them and pay for them without help. Topic: I will not say a person of the ‘left’ thinking persuasion did not say this but I really find it hard that someone could be that cold.
4reds on March 12, 2010 at 7:18 PM
You are making an assumption that leftists want everyone who comes here to be of the same class as themselves. They are perfectly happy with being elitists in charge of lower class citizens who they keep down and refuse to allow to be upwardly mobile. It would be a lot easier to keep recent immigrants in a lower class than children of people who have been here a few generations especially if they don’t encourage assimilation.
txmomof6 on March 12, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Sharrukin,,,I don’t get it still I thought the leftists number one priority was saving the earth and hating the west was second. Importing millions of third worlders will destroy the ecology of this nation and they seem not to care. I think you are right though that they want to eliminate the Euro Americans and then turn it into another third world nation. What nation would accept the third worlders after that? I don’t think Iran or North Korea will be flooded in.
garydt on March 12, 2010 at 7:20 PM
Yes, but part of Aquinas’ Five Proofs is based on Platonic thought, i.e., prime mover. It’s true that he was influenced more by Aristotle, but Aquinas’ Summa is credited with reconciling Greek thought with Christianity. I don’t see how Paul’s theology is influenced by Plato. Perhaps you can show me?
atheling on March 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Prime Mover is Aristotelian. Plato had the Demiurge.
Keljeck on March 12, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »