Moon4kat -- let's think a little deeper here.
Tell me what the difference is between the following scenarios:
-Voluntarily supporting a human being with my money, and
-Being forced at the barrel of a gun to support a human being with my money.
Is there an ethical difference, yes or no?
If yes, then you understand the difference between charity and government handouts, and hopefully partially why someone would object to pro-baby-in-the-womb murder and still not support political gift-giving (using my tax dollars) to irresponsible people.
If no, you are lost.
I can only speak for myself.
I am all about protecting the natural rights of all human beings.
I am NOT about protecting the arbitrary, political privileges of a specific class, ethnicity, or group of people.
My argument against abortion is simple.
Is a fetus a human being? Or a human-that-will-eventually-be?
Since it shares all the functions as a out-of-the-womb human being, certainly it must have rights, correct?
If a human being, or human-to-be, has natural rights like you and me, why is a baby in the womb subject to murder at a whim -- with the exception of a risk of death to the mother -- when we are protected by laws and police from out-of-the-womb murder?
There is an ethical inconsistency in the pro-baby under a few flaps of skin murder argument, and unfortunately, folks like Al refuse to acknowledge and understand the differences between natural rights and arbitrary political privileges bestowed upon a select group of the State.
A is A. Murder is murder.
And I am an atheist.
You get paid what you negotiate, and what you are worth.
I work 2 sales jobs and know my worth is directly proportional to what I produce.
The same goes for anyone in any profession, male or female.
Employers will always want to pay you lower than what you want to be paid. That's the whole point of negotiation. And more importantly, proving you are worth more pay.
If they don't pay you enough? Take your talent elsewhere.
And stop whining.
Kaiser Sose is Big Brother?!?
Schooling is overrated. Education isn't.
This country was built on the backs of hard workers with a 10th grade education and a lot of guts.
Who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to a kid with little-to-no long-term record of positive financial history, without collateral, for an intangible object, like a low ROI degree like psychology or sociology?
Only the Goober'mint.
The number one move to reduce or stop tuition inflation would be to cut the free-flow of government money. Schools would immediately re-tool their finances and cut the fat.
Second would be to allow the free-market in to fill the void.
We used to have an extensive guild and apprentice system in place to teach the young.
So many professions are taught "on-the-job," mentee and mentor. Plumbing, computer programming, sales, and all sorts of vocational work.
This argument for government recognition for your spiritual commitment has been co-opted by a complacent media who thinks the government should be the arbiter and God over all things personal and private.
Every Christian should yell blasphemy at the concept of having a license to ordain their spiritual covenant between them and God.
Regardless, marriage isn't a Christian thing. It's a person-to-person-of-whatever-belief thing. Let them decide. Or, let the churches decide who is eligible for their standard of marriage.
Why the f*** does Government have to be involved in EVERYTHING?
226 IN CHATTANOOGA,TN WHIT THE BLOOD GANG
by Carlos Hess
Why should the government have any involvement in marriage -- of any kind -- to begin with?
Did not the man resist arrest and run away, yes or no?
Given the events and how they unfolded, would you say the cops were 100% sure this man -- uncuffed, brandishing a knife, and resisting arrest -- was unarmed, yes or no?
Did the cops conduct -- or even have the opportunity given this man's unyielding resistance -- to a full pat-down and correct procedure to reasonably conclude this man was unarmed, yes or no?
Easy, how many times do you resist arrest -- via not following lawful commands and attempting to flee -- before you are considering a threat to the immediate surrounding area?
Bottom line, again -- given the FACTS of how many times he resisted lawful orders and arrest -- as long as he's UNcuffed and UNrestrained, he is a presumed RISK to EVERYONE in the near vicinity. Again, the cops DID NOT have enough information to determine if this man -- at that time -- was a risk or not, namely because HE CONTINUALLY RESISTED law enforcement!
To the poster above -- I missed the part on the video where the blows came after he was cuffed. If that's true, then it's definitely police brutality and they (the police) should suffer the consequences -- based on what happened AFTER the cuffing.