Funny how many cons here think it is OK for the government to decide who has babies and who doesn't...kind of like China...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070720100151AAmUSBg&r=w#MYxvIDLrBDB7dC_9CRwk
2007-07-20 06:16:45 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Satan, click the link and take your head out of the sand!
2007-07-20 06:20:35 · update #1
thanks for paying attention, face! Anyone else who wants to figure out why you are blocked, need only to read my profile...I am not a liberal. Calling me that instead of answering my question gets you the boot.
2007-07-20 06:30:05 · update #2
Chief Yellow horse, my guess why they do that is because they are LIBERAL. Which has nothing to do with me, or my question.
2007-07-20 06:32:32 · update #3
oh, and not answering the question at all gets you blocked as well.
2007-07-20 06:33:14 · update #4
moltar, didn't click the link
Kevorkian..WE HAVE A WINNER! A THINKING CONSERVATIVE!
2007-07-20 06:36:13 · update #5
Republicans support whatever form of government control that fits into their agenda. If the government trashes the constitution, tries to foster Christianity in the public arena, invades privacy rights, dictates morality or tries to punish poor people then the right wing moralistic hypocrites will line up to force their reactionary ideas on society. I have to say, though, that their actions and proposals reflect fascism more than communism.
2007-07-20 06:39:10 · answer #1 · answered by quest for truth gal 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
we don't! communism is an severe form of socialism. The Socialist ideology is a street to failure! below socialism, incentives the two play a minimum function or are skipped over completely. A centrally planned economic equipment with out industry expenses or salary, the place components is owned by the state, is a equipment with out an useful incentive mechanism to direct financial interest. by failing to rigidity incentives, socialism is a thought inconsistent with human nature and is consequently doomed to fail. Socialism is predicated on the thought that incentives do not rely!
2016-10-22 04:13:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
what are you talking about
I have yet to see cons moving toward communism
if any group has made any moves that direction its libs
everyone needs to be taken care of by the government
noone has a right to have more then the other guy
freespeech is ok as long as you agree with them
and even the libs are a far cry from communism
never seen nor heard anything about government deciding who has kids even if this is so that would be a law coming out of the congress which is controled by the democrats
2007-07-20 06:23:43 · answer #3 · answered by tgatecrasher2003 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually, Democrats are the ones that have the most similar ideals to what Soviet communism was like. The government should take care of all the people, so that everyone makes the same kind of living and shares everything. And just like the Soviet leaders who somehow found a way to live quite wealthy in that system, leaders of the Democratic party seem to do very well for themselves as well with their mansions, and their $400 haircuts.
2007-07-20 06:23:20 · answer #4 · answered by Cubs39 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Did you read the question?
As offensive as the underlying Eugenics of it are, it isn't talking about the government deciding who has babbies and who doesn't, but about private 'charitable' organizations providing encentives to voluntarily reduce family size.
What's funny is that the government /already/ provides encintives, in the form of welfare payment and other programs, for those who cannot afford to care for the children they do have to actually /have more children/.
Though I can't agree with the proposed private eugenics program, I certainly can't support the government doning what amounts to the reverse.
2007-07-20 06:31:14 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The idea that free trade would ultimately result in governmental change is not a new concept. This is exactly why we support business growth in China. The idea is that eventually, with enough exposure to the West, the Chinese people will be allowed to vote and have freedoms we enjoy here.
Not the ideal, it's true, and a big risk, but, it might work.
2007-07-20 06:30:03 · answer #6 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He's saying that if you are a criminal or you have no money to support children, what is the point of making the child's life miserable! Some countries who are not communist such as countries in Europe used to castrate serial killers, rapists, etc. Republicans support communism? Communism is more related to Democrats. Have you ever studied Liberalism by Green and Spencer?
2007-07-20 06:23:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thanks for proving, once again, that morons like you are completely incapable of reading and comprehending English. Thank you government run education!
The proposal in the link is to offer people an incentive to not have children. Nobody is forced into anything. Unlike the Communist Party of America (Democrats) that want to force you into social security, welfare, medicare, socialized medicine, public education (indoctrination) system, etc. etc.
There is nothing wrong with giving people choices and incentives. There is everything wrong with forcing people into programs they don't want.
2007-07-20 06:33:42 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You have *completely* missed the point of the issue.
The issue is not who can or can't have children, the issue is who will provide for them. I do not think it right for me to be expected to foot the bill for the multiple children those baby factories produce. One that you didn't plan for and can't afford to take care of is an accident, the second under the same circumstances is simply irresponsible, any more than that is criminal negligence.
2007-07-20 06:23:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Where is the government saying who can and cannot have babies? Need to make up stuff like a normal libtard I see.
2007-07-20 06:31:22 · answer #10 · answered by Bill 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋