Bernard Gui Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Calm said: I am curious, do you know how much the nonprofit referred to in this case was funded by donations and how much of it was funded by the city government through the contracts with the city? From the article: No idea. I know if our local stakes did not provide for welfare needs, our community would have to cough up a lot of money. We don’t provide for adoptions.
rockpond Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: They get to choose a certain demographic and behavior set when they choose/chose LDSFS, according to disclosed criteria. Outlaw those criteria, you outlaw her choice. Her baby. Her choice. Unless, of course, a monstrous imposition intercedes. Do you have a reference for that? Because when we became approved adoptive parents with LDSFS, we had to create a scrapbook (like an all about us book) with pictures, info, journaling, etc. The book was then given to birth moms to review in choosing a set of parents for their child. Perhaps a certain demographic and behavior set was just a first step to narrow down the selection.
Calm Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) Found out the government funds 90%, though that probably doesn't take into account volunteer hours, page 14. https://cssphiladelphia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2017-annual-report.pdf Edited September 1, 2018 by Calm
Daniel2 Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 14 hours ago, USU78 said: Wrong! The state has no compelling interest in wresting from a pregnant girl/woman her choice to place her child with whoever she chooses. The presumption of her unfettered right should only be impinged in Juvy Court based upon her unfitness to make such a decision for the child. It is a monstrous thing to steal that choice from her because somebody else wants in. Her baby: her choice. By your own logic then, in the case of abortion, it’s her body/baby, her choice, then, right?
Daniel2 Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 14 hours ago, USU78 said: Melanin content: accident of birth; Eye shape: accident of birth; Hair type: accident of birth --> hereditary aristocracy. Homosexuality, bisexuality, and the like --> nonhereditary aristocracy based upon environment and/or choice [in the absence of better/some evidence to the contrary] Aristocracies are repugnant to America. Religious affiliation—> nonhereditary based on environment and/or choice.
USU78 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Posted September 1, 2018 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: By your own logic then, in the case of abortion, it’s her body/baby, her choice, then, right? I guess you missed the first day of Teasing 101. 1
USU78 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Posted September 1, 2018 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Religious affiliation—> nonhereditary based on environment and/or choice. Yeah ... except it really is in the Constitution. Makes a difference. 1
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Yeah ... except it really is in the Constitution. Makes a difference. The freedom for religions to take contracts with the government and ignore the rules of the contract by citing the First Amendment was left out by the Founders. Must have been an oversight. Get on that Amendment I guess. 1
Calm Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: The freedom for religions to take contracts with the government and ignore the rules of the contract by citing the First Amendment was left out by the Founders. Must have been an oversight. Get on that Amendment I guess. If 90% of your income is from the government ($111,000,000) seems to me it is both appropriate and wise to abide by governmental rules. Edited September 1, 2018 by Calm
The Nehor Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 26 minutes ago, Calm said: If 90% of your income is from the government ($111,000,000) seems to me it is both appropriate and wise to abide by governmental rules. In this case if 1% or even 0% of your money came from the government you would still have to play by their rules if you want to get involved in foster care. 2
carbon dioxide Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) On 8/31/2018 at 12:03 PM, USU78 said: Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. What makes you think LDS social services would have had to comply with these things. Not just anyone off the street could adopt through LDS social services. When I adopted my child, I need a referral from our bishop. There never was a chance that any gay couple would have adopted through it because no bishop would ever refer a gay couple to it. It is sad they ended it as there is no way I would have adopted by any other agency. The adoption costs through LDS social services allowed us to adopt. After costs and tax credits and insurance benefits, our adoption cost less than a 1000 bucks. Edited September 1, 2018 by carbon dioxide 1
poptart Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 Just an observation, the more liberal friends I have who applaud this stuff? I've yet to see them open their homes to orphans/the poor/homeless nor their wallets, yet they sure cheer stuff like this on. Oh, also they sure like to scream whenever raising property taxes/taxes period for the poor comes up. I should say I have a few conservative relatives (who am I kidding, probably more than a few) who also applaud this, but they're Baptist so guess there's that. Can't let them icky Catholics go on doing good can we?
USU78 Posted September 2, 2018 Author Posted September 2, 2018 22 hours ago, rockpond said: Do you have a reference for that? Because when we became approved adoptive parents with LDSFS, we had to create a scrapbook (like an all about us book) with pictures, info, journaling, etc. The book was then given to birth moms to review in choosing a set of parents for their child. Perhaps a certain demographic and behavior set was just a first step to narrow down the selection. You aren't reading me carefully: by choosing ldsfs, they choose ueberMormon families with whom to place their children. Take Mormons and Catholics out of the equation, you take the birth mother's choice away.
Anijen Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, The Nehor said: In this case if 1% or even 0% of your money came from the government you would still have to play by their rules if you want to get involved in foster care. I'd like to see NFL players stand and respect the policy of the owners by standing and respecting the flag and the anthem (the owners, whom pay the salaries of their employees [the players]. cue; private and public debate now... Edited September 2, 2018 by Anijen
Calm Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Anijen said: I'd like to see NFL players stand and respect the policy of the owners by standing and respecting the flag and the anthem (the owners, whom pay the salaries of their employees [the players]. cue; private and public debate now... In the case of the NFL players, some at least have considerable power with the owners because they are a scarce resource. The owners could pull them up on contract violations, but if they risk alienating players, they risk having a decent team. Government is in a different position as far as enforcement plus there are likely other agencies willing to step in and take over CSS's role (so not a scarce resource) and if they can do as good of a job, there isn't much incentive not to change if CSS isn't abiding by the contract. I personally think people should live up to their contacts as long as fraud is not involved. Edited September 2, 2018 by Calm 2
The Nehor Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: You aren't reading me carefully: by choosing ldsfs, they choose ueberMormon families with whom to place their children. Take Mormons and Catholics out of the equation, you take the birth mother's choice away. Nope.
The Nehor Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Anijen said: I'd like to see NFL players stand and respect the policy of the owners by standing and respecting the flag and the anthem (the owners, whom pay the salaries of their employees [the players]. cue; private and public debate now... Obsession with protecting respect for governmental symbols by coercion is the sign of a sick society. Also, anyone who finds a sporting event offensive because of a minor unobtrusive symbolic gesture by an athlete really needs a better cause to fight for. There are children in pain that can be relieved, schools that need to be propped up, economic inequality to address, and people killing themselves in despair, but people spill ink and outrage over someone kneeling at an event. Add in the irony that the chief complainer behind this “controversy” is the President who is currently defecating all over the political and cultural values that the flag and the anthem represent and my irony meter explodes. 4
rockpond Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 3 hours ago, USU78 said: You aren't reading me carefully: by choosing ldsfs, they choose ueberMormon families with whom to place their children. Take Mormons and Catholics out of the equation, you take the birth mother's choice away. It isn't taking their choice away, just the ease with which they could have made that choice. But, nobody forced Mormons and Catholics to stop doing adoptions. They bowed out of their own accord. 1
Tacenda Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Obsession with protecting respect for governmental symbols by coercion is the sign of a sick society. Also, anyone who finds a sporting event offensive because of a minor unobtrusive symbolic gesture by an athlete really needs a better cause to fight for. There are children in pain that can be relieved, schools that need to be propped up, economic inequality to address, and people killing themselves in despair, but people spill ink and outrage over someone kneeling at an event. Add in the irony that the chief complainer behind this “controversy” is the President who is currently defecating all over the political and cultural values that the flag and the anthem represent and my irony meter explodes. I wish I could high five/fist bump you right now, Nehor. I also wish I had the guts to post something on FB to all of the friends I have that are so vehemently against this football player Colin Kaepernicks taking a knee during the anthem. I wonder what people have to say about those that won't stand during the anthem, certain religions for instance. Here's a couple of good articles. https://www.ccsj.edu/cms/shavings/2017/12/01/some-religions-dont-allow-for-standing-during-the-national-anthem/ http://amishamerica.com/pledging-allegiance-flag-or-god/ Plus, I believe this guy or others taking a knee, shows that we aren't Korea!
Anijen Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: I wish I could high five/fist bump you right now, Nehor. I also wish I had the guts to post something on FB to all of the friends I have that are so vehemently against this football player Colin Kaepernick's taking a knee during the anthem. I wonder what people have to say about those that won't stand during the anthem, certain religions for instance. Here's a couple of good articles. https://www.ccsj.edu/cms/shavings/2017/12/01/some-religions-dont-allow-for-standing-during-the-national-anthem/ http://amishamerica.com/pledging-allegiance-flag-or-god/ Plus, I believe this guy or others taking a knee, shows that we aren't Korea! I found Neehors post very offensive personally and there is nothing wrong with patriotism, celebrating our veterans who died for the freedom. I find all those who kneel and show disrespect to this country, flag, veterans and my father! I feel this quote by Nehor is extremely vulgar and disrespectful regardless of his hate for President Trump. Quote defecating all over the political and cultural values that the flag and the anthem represent
Anijen Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 What happened to respect, decorum? Nehors post totally lacked etiquette and was in poor taste. Tacenda's post backing up and supporting such hate filled vile should be ashamed. Political differences are an absolute, however, it is no cause for fomenting animosity and justifying that hatred because they disagree with who the President is simply childish, selfish, loathing, and filled with self righteousness. Your different political opinions is just that (an opinion) and does not justify the nastiness.
Tacenda Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Anijen said: What happened to respect, decorum? Nehors post totally lacked etiquette and was in poor taste. Tacenda's post backing up and supporting such hate filled vile should be ashamed. Political differences are an absolute, however, it is no cause for fomenting animosity and justifying that hatred because they disagree with who the President is simply childish, selfish, loathing, and filled with self righteousness. Your different political opinions is just that (an opinion) and does not justify the nastiness. I guess I didn't read it the same way you did. Or I got ahead of myself. By that black man taking a knee, he wasn't protesting the men/women who fought, he is just taking a stand the only way he knew how, IMO, a way to get the attention for what is needed. I'm grateful for those that fight for the freedom to do just that. I think it ironic that some want to take that freedom to protest away.
Daniel2 Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 15 hours ago, USU78 said: Yeah ... except it really is in the Constitution. Makes a difference. When when your only argument left is.... “Yeah, but religion is in the constitution!,” but is bereft of any other substance, I already know that my rationale and reason will ultimately triumph. Thanks for proving my point. 1
Glenn101 Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 12 hours ago, Tacenda said: I guess I didn't read it the same way you did. Or I got ahead of myself. By that black man taking a knee, he wasn't protesting the men/women who fought, he is just taking a stand the only way he knew how, IMO, a way to get the attention for what is needed. I'm grateful for those that fight for the freedom to do just that. I think it ironic that some want to take that freedom to protest away. Tacenda, I understand your viewpoint. But I see a disconnect between the groups that you cite who are refusing to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance because of religious beliefs and that of athletes breaking with tradition in their acknowledgement of the American flag. I really do not believe that kneeling for the National Anthem is disrepectful. It just breaks with a tradition established by someone or a group of someones, probably in World War II when it became popular to play it at sporting events. (And probably mosy of the thousands of people at the sporting events nowadays really wish that the National Anthem be done away with at those events.) The problem is the narrative has been about disrespect for the flag and the U.S. from the first. Whatever the point was meant to be about has been lost in the rhetorical noise that has followed. It has not done anything to address the issue of oppression of blacks and other or to other people. And it never will do so because people do not see the connection between kneeling for the national anthem and the cause being espoused. Although Martin Luther King probably would have been in agreement with the ideas behind the protest, I believe that he would have urged a different means, more effective means, of expressing those ideas. Wherever he went, whenever he spoke, everyone knew what the issues were, what he was talking about. Unfortunately there seems to be no one on the scene right now with Dr, King's vision and oratorical powers. The cause is just, but it matters how that cause is presented, if one really wishes to effect change rather than cause controversy. Glenn 1
Anijen Posted September 2, 2018 Posted September 2, 2018 12 hours ago, Tacenda said: he is just taking a stand the only way he knew how, The kneeling players are multi-millionaire employees who have a very public voice. They have many other ways to protest other than on their employers time. You insult his and all other players intelligence by saying; " he is just taking a stand the only way he knew how,. This isn't about the protest, it is about the incredibly disrespectful manner they choose to protest. The Westboro Baptist church also protest at the graves of returning soldiers in which the Constitution gives them that right, I am just as against this choice in manner of Protest. Once again it is not the protesting that bothers me, it is the way they choose to protest. Quote IMO, a way to get the attention for what is needed. You are right. It is a way to get attention. You could be wrong about "for what is needed" The NFL losing millions of fans and revenue is a hindrance not a solution for what is needed. When protestors choose to protest in such a disrespectful manner, loses any gains they would like to see and what actually happens is it creates more animosity. In a larger and more evil scale, the reasoning is the same for a terrorist who chooses to blow up innocent people the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians do so in the pursuit of political aims. The manner of protesting causes more problems than it is worth. Protesting is fine, but I'd choose a different type of stage. Quote I'm grateful for those that fight for the freedom to do just that. As I am. My father ( a very well decorated war hero, believed so too). Every single protest is given the capability by every veteran of every battle of every war. These veterans died in preserving the liberty and symbolism of what the US flag stands for and for what the anthem stands for O'er the land of the free [players are free to protest] and the home of the brave [veterans like my father, who died so players may protest]. Quote I think it ironic that some want to take that freedom to protest away. I never said that I want to take the freedom to protest away. I haven't even implied that. You are creating a strawman argument by saying we want to take the freedom to protest away and then criticizing us [me] for wanting to take the freedom to protest away. I am all for freedom of speech. I am for players protesting, for Westboro Baptist church members protesting. I am for this because it is a freedom that is hardly allowed in any other country. What I am against and I am disgusted with is the manner in which they choose to protest. I strongly feel that no gains have been made for the reason they are protesting if anything it has hurt their cause and has become polarizing and in effect a hindrance to the goals they wanted to make. Having said that; I would not even take the right to choose the manner of protest from them, even though I find it equivalent as to the use of toilet paper. Conclusion; I never want to take away anyone's right to protest. I do not want to take away the right to choose the manner of protesting. If someone wants to use a way that is offensive to me, my father, veterans, our country then have at it. That doesn't mean I need to find their choice of how they protest disgusting (it is), and because I disagree with you, or Nehor, or the kneeling players does not mean I am wrong or a racist.
Recommended Posts