This is cant. Yes, that definition.
Yes. The collectivist position on taxes and spending. It's THAT definition. That is what I'm saying.
Let's assume for a second that none of the wealth "confiscated" is used to pay for social programs. It is solely used for purposes of warfare.
I have no idea what you're saying here. I guess I have to ask, what do you mean by "welfare" here?
you're not going to see a rebuttal from me here. I was very pissed at Bush when he reneged on his campaign promise not to engage in nation building. Next thing you know, we're shocking and aweing in Iraq, and then "rebuilding" them.And that might be appropriate since most of the neocons aren't warriors in the true sense but more than willing to sacrifice other people's sons (especially the poor) on the battelfield.
Why is it that conservative feel they have a right to eliminate birth control but are unwilling to support the offspring of such policies that result? Oh, you say stop screwing. Yeah. Like republicans don't.
WTF are you talking about? No one's talking about banning birth control. Some religious people are against birth control. I think it's fine not to make them pay for other people's birth control. Again, you're faced with a choice at the ballot box. Instead of putting YOUR money where your mouth is, and donating your own money to help poor people buy birth control, you're flipping the lever for the candidate who says he'll force those religious people to go against their beliefs.
It is not the federal government's place to provide birth control. I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the shriners should quit pimping the crippled kids on infomercials to get people to donate to their charities, and just lobby the government to take money away from people and give to them. Worked for planned parenthood.