Do you also believe the spiritual reasons espoused by your church?
I guess what I’m asking, is that I agree that you may have secular reasons to be pro-life. But you also have the religious reasons too, right? Or do you explicitly deny the teachings of your church on those two issues?
If you don’t, you kinda still are promoting your religion, you just agree with a secular argument for the exact same thing your religion dictates. Also, even if you didn’t buy the secular arguments, would you obey the church anyway? Is there any way of knowing?
This is actually kinda interesting to me, since I don’t believe anything for religious reasons.
You guys should just kiss already. Everyone can tell it’ll happen around Season 3 when the ratings start to dip.
Anywho, to answer the question that is the subject of this thread, it’ll happen when the Baby Boomers finally do the right thing and die already. Most spending going to red states is social security and medicare. They plan to cut that when the leeches have had their fill and my generation is nearly able to collect.
This pro-choicer would feel fully justified personally receiving an abortion.
Or rather, what if this pro-choice atheist told you that they would continue to feel fully justified personally receiving an abortion, even if inexplicably they converted to Catholicism, because they have non-religious reasons for being pro-choice. What would be your response to them? Not, like, in depth but the general thrust of what you would say.
I suppose it might be an important question if we assume that more military installations are located in Republican states, or were Republican states when the bases were built. Because if they are more or less randomly distributed without regard to those considerations, what’s your point? If there are more located in blue states, does that even something out?
And do you know how many military families receive food assistance? Follows the long established principle that if the Army wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one.
One complicating factor is that military bases will themselves tend to redden a state, since a base means a lot of military personnel living there, and they tend to vote Republican. It’s probably not a very large effect, though.
Why shouldn’t military bases count? They are huge boosts to the local economy, an effective jobs program for the area.
I’d love to have Fort Devens in MA opened again. Ff the Red States don’t want a military base because it makes them look like welfare queens even more than they already are, they can send the soldiers packing.
Also California seems to have more armed forces bases then any other state and more military personal yet they manage to be net contributors to the federal budget. Those Red States need to come up with better excuses.
I’d say that they have not accepted a core teaching of Catholicism. Personally receiving an abortion incurs an automatic excommunication.
So that’s an instance in which the non-religious reason directly contradicts the religious teaching and it’s impossible, or at least highly unlikely, to hold both simultaneously.
How’s they opened as blue state bases when southern Democrats were in key positions. Since then those bases survived several rounds of base realignment and closure. The BRAC commission is bipartisan, acts with input from DoD, and submits their findings to the President for approval. It’s one of the better processes the government has to avoid the decisions just being pork. Bases in states under both parties control have been closed in every round. Is that a better excuse?
Incidentally the taxpayer to military population ratio probably means more for impact on net contributions. CA conveniently has the largest population of civilians so having the largest number of military isn’t necessarily sufficient to explain why they are net contributors.
Left this bit off… technically federal bases are not under state jurisdiction. The property is federal not state. The state can’t just vote to close the base.
They are distinct from programs that give out largess. Military bases certainly create spending and jobs, but they do so in order to support the military, not to supplement income.
So defence is more important than keeping people alive? The Preamble to the Constitution says ‘We the People, in order to… provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare…’ Our mission statement seems clear that our goals include defence and helping people.
Well, I certainly don’t believe THAT, Bricker. Many, many bases continue to be open - even after rounds of base closures - due to the influence of the state’s congressional representation. Those bases are largesse pure and simple.
Currently there are 149 US-based military bases and some number of overseas bases. Discounting those outside the US - the jobs they supply aren’t US, after al - that still leave 149 to play. I’d be astonished if real savings couldn’t be made by reducing those to say, 50 or so concentrated bases.
To pretend that military bases aren’t largess, given the behavior of congress during the base closure hearings, is disingenuous in the extreme.