Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Abortion is covered in Obamacare...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 10:50pm
Originally posted by slackerr26 slackerr26 wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

I vehemently disagree with FE on almost everything he seems to post, but you guys are collectively being jackasses. Not every one of you, but enough that it's a trend. I find FE to be far less annoying than the constant barrage of crap that inevitably destroys any good debate that he happens to enter. Half of you seem to agree with me whenever I mention how violently partisan America has become, but then you go and act in exactly that matter whenever FE, and to a lesser extent OS, dare to post something motivated by traditional conservative thought. Frankly I think FE is good for this place; he brings in a VERY much needed dissenting opinion form the norm, which helps to balance discussions out a bit. If we all sat here agreeing with each other this place would simply suck.

We've got a lot of people here thrilled to death to be adults now- when the hell are you going to start acting like it?


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.


the only one who makes debates interesting is PP when he brings along his fact-hammer
Get with the times. [Opinions = Facts] these days.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
slackerr26 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - language, 8/20

Joined: 24 June 2008
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slackerr26 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 11:01pm
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

Originally posted by slackerr26 slackerr26 wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

I vehemently disagree with FE on almost everything he seems to post, but you guys are collectively being jackasses. Not every one of you, but enough that it's a trend. I find FE to be far less annoying than the constant barrage of crap that inevitably destroys any good debate that he happens to enter. Half of you seem to agree with me whenever I mention how violently partisan America has become, but then you go and act in exactly that matter whenever FE, and to a lesser extent OS, dare to post something motivated by traditional conservative thought. Frankly I think FE is good for this place; he brings in a VERY much needed dissenting opinion form the norm, which helps to balance discussions out a bit. If we all sat here agreeing with each other this place would simply suck.

We've got a lot of people here thrilled to death to be adults now- when the hell are you going to start acting like it?


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.


the only one who makes debates interesting is PP when he brings along his fact-hammer
Get with the times. [Opinions = Facts] these days.


oh yea i forgot. dont you get strikes for posting facts now?
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 November 2009 at 11:13pm
I believe so. I think thats why PP has to keep a low profile these days.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 7:54am
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

I vehemently disagree with FE on almost everything he seems to post, but you guys are collectively being jackasses. Not every one of you, but enough that it's a trend. I find FE to be far less annoying than the constant barrage of crap that inevitably destroys any good debate that he happens to enter. Half of you seem to agree with me whenever I mention how violently partisan America has become, but then you go and act in exactly that matter whenever FE, and to a lesser extent OS, dare to post something motivated by traditional conservative thought. Frankly I think FE is good for this place; he brings in a VERY much needed dissenting opinion form the norm, which helps to balance discussions out a bit. If we all sat here agreeing with each other this place would simply suck.

We've got a lot of people here thrilled to death to be adults now- when the hell are you going to start acting like it?


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.
 
 
You guys missed the point of HV's strike. I complained about HV's obviously flaming signature last month.
 
At least one of the moderators, who are suppost to keep the rules around here, thought it was funny and told HV.
 
That is a clear violation of proper mod behavior, and his revelation of that happening forced the mods to cover their backsides, as they were busted by HV's response.
 
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Yeah, that's a real personal attack there, FE. Swing and a miss though, mods didn't do anything when you reported it. Well, didn't do anything but laugh.
 
See, moderators are suppost to stay impartial, but obviously we have at least one mod on here that isn't.
 
Based on the pm's I got, and responses on the board, I'm pretty sure I know who the mod is who thought it was funny...
 
See, when one mod acts in a way that makes all the mods look bad, the ones with character will stand up and do the right thing, as they don't want to be associated with that kind of behavior.
 
 
And that is why he got a strike.  I doubt it had anything to do with the edit... Which I got his intent, but the damage was already done.
 
 
Here, why don't we all try and avoid namecalling and try to use that thing that we were all suppost to learn in school, "Tolerance". We are so tolerant of deviant behavior, but if someone has a conservative, or moral viewpoint then throw them to the curb?
 
 
Its apparent that many peoples inability to argue a point forces them to just go to the insults, which at the end of the day just make that person look trivial and childish. If you don't like the "anti-FE" comments jmac, then start actually debating me for the content of my posts, instead of your constant attacks on individuals that have nothing to do with the topic at hand...
 
 
Here I will point out to you so you can clearly see what I am talking about.
 
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.
 
You are welcome to your opinion, but stating it in the way you did above is offensive.
 
Why is the post above "nonsense". It is fairly well written and the point is obvious. You may not like the point, as it pretty much calls you out for your behavior, but it in no way is "nonsense".
 
Most of my threads that you enter you follow the same path, showing that your polarized opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong, and worthy of flaming. I respect that, as many times, I am the same way, (but, I leave out the flaming) Except when you are often proved wrong, you just don't accept it...
 
 


Edited by FreeEnterprise - 06 November 2009 at 7:55am
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:09am
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by jerseypaint jerseypaint wrote:

Eh. I'm all for choice, but I don't think it should be funded by taxes. I wouldn't want to pay more for someone else's mistake.
 
 
According to the bill, you will be paying $1.00 a month towards other people's choice... Even if you are male, and can't have an abortion.
 
 

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.  It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”  The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan.  The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.



You keep quoting it, but I can't find any mention of it in the actual bill.  Please point it out for me, for your convenience I have pasted the full, unedited text of sec 213 below:
Quote

SEC. 213. INSURANCE RATING RULES.

(a) In General- The premium rate charged for a qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance coverage may not vary except as follows:

    (1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED- By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.

    (2) BY AREA- By premium rating area (as permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans, as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with such regulators).

    (3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT- By family enrollment (such as variations within categories and compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner.

(b) Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage-

    (1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).

    (2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate the Commissioner--

      (A) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;

      (B) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and

      (C) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

(c) Study and Reports-

(1) STUDY- The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large-group-insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:

(2) REPORTS- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable agencies a report on the study conducted under paragraph (1). Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and midsize employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers. Not later than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable agencies an updated report on such study, including updates on such recommendations.

 
 
Back to the topic at hand...
 
You keep reposting this, and it answers the question you keep asking in my post...  The problem is, that is isn't in plain english, but lawyer speak. This part of the bill is the part that refers to abortion. Even NPR sees that abortion is covered in this bill in the section you keep posting...
 
 

The Pelosi health-care bill, on the other hand, authorizes the public plan to cover all elective abortions — and it will certainly do so. Can anyone imagine the Obama administration's HHS deciding otherwise? And people receiving federal subsidies would be able to use them to purchase private insurance plans covering abortion. Which is to say that federal funds will, in a break with longstanding policy, be entangled with abortion.

With the public option, there will not even be a chance to opt out of abortion coverage. As Time magazine has reported, all enrollees in the public option will be required, by law, to put at least $1 a month into a fund that will pay for abortions, and the legislation explicitly proclaims that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for" abortions.

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:11am
You still haven't pointed out where section 213 mentions abortion.  Just throwing that out there.
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:21am
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

You still haven't pointed out where section 213 mentions abortion.  Just throwing that out there.
 
 
Maybe because you already spammed this thread with it over and over and over...
 
Just for you...
 
"

(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A).

(2) CONSIDERATIONS- In making such estimate the Commissioner--

    (A) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;

    (B) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and

    (C) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

     
     
    Seriously...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:37am
You still hav'nt given us a viable option of what to do with all the kids. Adoption aint gunna work as I mentioned twice, and was ignored.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:39am

Section 222 (d)(4)(A)does not appear to exist.  I think you are referring to section 222 (e)(4)(A/B) which covers which cases will public funding be allowed for abortions.  However, those subsections do not appear to have even been written yet, all they say is what the topic of the sub paragraphs will be.  All it says right now is
Quote

(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.


How your website interpreted that to mean that public funding will be used for all abortions and there will be a special fund set aside with which to kill babies, I have no idea.


Edited by Eville - 06 November 2009 at 8:42am
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 9:04am
Call that biased "NPR" and ask them...
 
or just google abortion covered in house healtcare bill.
 
 
It is sad that you still can't see that it is covered. Why would there be so much news about it being in the bill if it weren't?
 
 
A "special" set aside is still "public" funding of abortion...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 9:08am
Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

You still hav'nt given us a viable option of what to do with all the kids. Adoption aint gunna work as I mentioned twice, and was ignored.
 
 
Your opinion is that it wouldn't work, you may have personal experience in the matter, but that hardly makes you an expert. Find some sources that prove your point and I may consider murder should be a viable option if we don't "want" a human life. Maybe that shooter in Texas was just aborting lives he didn't want...
 
My family adopted 4 kids (2 from africa and 2 from china) because the American adoption system was so difficult to use and expensive, so I have experience too, but I'm not an expert.
 
And all of them were older, the youngest was 3. The oldest adopted was 12.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 10:22am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

I vehemently disagree with FE on almost everything he seems to post, but you guys are collectively being jackasses. Not every one of you, but enough that it's a trend. I find FE to be far less annoying than the constant barrage of crap that inevitably destroys any good debate that he happens to enter. Half of you seem to agree with me whenever I mention how violently partisan America has become, but then you go and act in exactly that matter whenever FE, and to a lesser extent OS, dare to post something motivated by traditional conservative thought. Frankly I think FE is good for this place; he brings in a VERY much needed dissenting opinion form the norm, which helps to balance discussions out a bit. If we all sat here agreeing with each other this place would simply suck.

We've got a lot of people here thrilled to death to be adults now- when the hell are you going to start acting like it?


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.
 
 
You guys missed the point of HV's strike. I complained about HV's obviously flaming signature last month.

It wasn't flaming, or a personal attack. Hence the reason it wasn't striked.
 
At least one of the moderators, who are suppost to keep the rules around here, thought it was funny and told HV.

That is a clear violation of proper mod behavior, and his revelation of that happening forced the mods to cover their backsides, as they were busted by HV's response.

You just happened to complain about someone who would get told. If that was pretty much anyone else with that sig they wouldn't have got a PM that said "LOLOL HV REPORTED YOUR SIG"

 
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

Yeah, that's a real personal attack there, FE. Swing and a miss though, mods didn't do anything when you reported it. Well, didn't do anything but laugh.
 
See, moderators are suppost to stay impartial, but obviously we have at least one mod on here that isn't.

The mod stayed impartial. Just thought no action was necessary in a sig that wasn't an attack on you, but a joke about religion. Has nothing to do with who reported it, or who was reported.
 
Based on the pm's I got, and responses on the board, I'm pretty sure I know who the mod is who thought it was funny...

Who? You're probably quite mistaken

 
See, when one mod acts in a way that makes all the mods look bad, the ones with character will stand up and do the right thing, as they don't want to be associated with that kind of behavior.

Or because you complained about it. Make enough of a stink someone will do it to shut you up.
 
 
And that is why he got a strike.  I doubt it had anything to do with the edit... Which I got his intent, but the damage was already done.

The damage? lol. It was a joke.
 
 
Here, why don't we all try and avoid namecalling and try to use that thing that we were all suppost to learn in school, "Tolerance". We are so tolerant of deviant behavior, but if someone has a conservative, or moral viewpoint then throw them to the curb?

Has nothing to do with being conservative.

 
Its apparent that many peoples inability to argue a point forces them to just go to the insults, which at the end of the day just make that person look trivial and childish. If you don't like the "anti-FE" comments jmac, then start actually debating me for the content of my posts, instead of your constant attacks on individuals that have nothing to do with the topic at hand...

 
 
Here I will point out to you so you can clearly see what I am talking about.
 
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:


That is nonsense. Complete utter nonsense.

There are quite a few members here who disagree with each other and could have meaningful debates(as we have had in the past). I like reading these debates. FE and OS are the ones who polarize such debates and make it into nothing more than stupidity. Seriously, why did this turn into some crap about HV's sig? In fact He only got a strike because FE whined enough about it in this thread.

I don't care what some retard(yeah I said it) is going to say about me after this post either.
 
You are welcome to your opinion, but stating it in the way you did above is offensive.

No it really isn't offensive unless you're looking for a reason to be offended.
 
Why is the post above "nonsense". It is fairly well written and the point is obvious. You may not like the point, as it pretty much calls you out for your behavior, but it in no way is "nonsense".

The above post is nonsense. He says without you and OS being a nuisance we would all agree and no good debates would happen. My point is plenty of members here can disagree and can have a good debate without ten million copy/paste threads.

Let's name a few:

Tallen, PP, Mack, Brihard, OS(when he's not being clint eastwood in gran torino), Whale, Reb, and others.

 
Most of my threads that you enter you follow the same path, showing that your polarized opinion is right, and everyone else is wrong, and worthy of flaming. I respect that, as many times, I am the same way, (but, I leave out the flaming) Except when you are often proved wrong, you just don't accept it...

I don't have a polarized opinion. I am glad you think you know my opinions on things when I don't even attempt to debate most of the time. I don't flame people who actually make sense.
 
Que pasa?


Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:10am
I lol'd at the
Originally posted by FE FE wrote:

moral viewpoint
I find it funny how conservatives talk about morality and the government leaving them alone. Yet they get angry when people suggest having the government leaving gay's alone.
 
Example 1:
Christian Conservative - "What!? You want to take my god out of school!? NEVER!"
Dude- "Sir, your kids can still pray and be christians and all that(in school), its just not fair for all the other kids who are not christian to be pressured into following along by school officials."
Christian Conservative - "Why not? They won't think its fair when they BURN IN HELL!(aka, my god can beat up your god)"
 
Example 2:
Conservative - WHAT!? ABORTION IS COVERED!?!?
Dude - Sir, I understand you think its killing babies, but the science does'nt really back you up.
Conservative - The bible says I'm right!
Dude - Well thats all fine and good sir, You don't have to get an abortion if you don't want to. They are available to others who might not have much of an alternative however.
Conservative - No alternative!? Put the kid up for adoption!!!
Dude - In 1999, the latest year for which totals have been finalized, there were about 581,000 children in foster care in the United States. The foster system alone is strained beyond imagination, let alone full on adoption. Are you going to adopt them?
Conservative - Uhhh... well... THATS NOT THE POINT!!!
 
 
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:14am
NPR is biased...I lol'd. 
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:30am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Originally posted by __sneaky__ __sneaky__ wrote:

You still hav'nt given us a viable option of what to do with all the kids. Adoption aint gunna work as I mentioned twice, and was ignored.
 
 
Your opinion is that it wouldn't work, you may have personal experience in the matter, but that hardly makes you an expert. Find some sources that prove your point and I may consider murder should be a viable option if we don't "want" a human life. Maybe that shooter in Texas was just aborting lives he didn't want...
 
My family adopted 4 kids (2 from africa and 2 from china) because the American adoption system was so difficult to use and expensive, so I have experience too, but I'm not an expert.
 
And all of them were older, the youngest was 3. The oldest adopted was 12.
My aunt worked in the system for over 40 years. My immediate family has been a liscensed foster home since 2000. We've taken about 50 kids in that time, almost all of which were severe medical needs cases. Often had as many as 6 kids living with us at a time (on top of me and my 2 older sisters.) We adopted 3 kids before refusing to take any more. (DFS still calls us begging.)
 
The system is so strained right now they don't even follow their own rules. We had 12 kids in our home at one point, and DFS just turned a blind eye because they have no other choices, despite that being a way over the limits of their own policy. Wanna know where the vast majority of kids go since there are not near enough available foster homes/adoptive homes? DFS in their wisdom sends them right back home. I cannot tell you how many kids we had to drive back to their abusive parents houses, and drop them, knowing what they were going back to. In fact...
 
-On September 30, 2006, there were an estimated 510,000 children in foster care.
-53 percent were reunited with parent(s) or primary caregiver(s)
-3 percent are in preadoptive homes
 
So lets flood the system with more kids! Good idea.
 
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
slackerr26 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - language, 8/20

Joined: 24 June 2008
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slackerr26 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:53am
watch out guys, FE might call tippmann HQ and report the mods
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 1:40pm
There was no personal attack, just a clear example of Bugg syndrome. What I find so entertaining is a mod made the sig I got a strike for. I think it's ridiculous you can get an all clear from one mod and another comes along and strikes you.

Welcome to T&O.
Back to Top
__sneaky__ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Voted 2010 Most Improved Forumer

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: Uncertain
Status: Offline
Points: 5286
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote __sneaky__ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 November 2009 at 1:43pm
Originally posted by High Voltage High Voltage wrote:

There was no personal attack, just a clear example of Bugg syndrome. What I find so entertaining is a mod made the sig I got a strike for. I think it's ridiculous you can get an all clear from one mod and another comes along and strikes you.

Welcome to T&O.
'MERICA.
"I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl


Forum Vice President
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.202 seconds.