So, you want to be against abortion, against adoption for large percentages of people, and against social services for children and the poor.

Why don't we just kill the motherf*ckers after they are born and be done with it?

bulldg4life: So, you want to be against abortion, against adoption for large percentages of people, and against social services for children and the poor.

Why don't we just kill the motherf*ckers after they are born and be done with it?

Because someone has to go and fight their wars.

This sounds like very biased reporting and commenting. What is the point of faith-based placements if the placements cannot be based on faith? So, they can exist as long as they do not express their convictions... how is that no oppression? Do away with the faith-based placements or leave them alone, do not shackle them.

jake_lex:
The "pro-life" movement only cares about you if you're a fetus or a vegetable. Between those two stages, go fark yourself.

So Fetuses and Pizzas?

If this doesn't prove that Republicans are fascist assholes, I don't know what does.

Haha, you live in a conservative shiat hole.

*sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

Party affiliation is all that matters to the Republican Party. I remember growing up being taugh that was the way it was in the U.S.S.R. with the Communist Party. We were taught that the 'party first' approach was bad for the people of the Soviet Union. I have to assume that it would also be bad for the people of the USA.

RandomExcess: This sounds like very biased reporting and commenting. What is the point of faith-based placements if the placements cannot be based on faith? So, they can exist as long as they do not express their convictions... how is that no oppression? Do away with the faith-based placements or leave them alone, do not shackle them.

I don't know if this is the case, but if the faith based placement agencies receive any kind of government funds related to providing for children in their care who are waiting to be placed, then I think their religious views should be left out of placement selection.
They provide a valuable service, no question, but unless they do it solely on private donations then using their religious beliefs to determine who qualifies is bullshiat.

gilgigamesh: apoptotic: *sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

What? Virginia's governor is a republican. So is their entire legislature. Red as red gets.

Oh hell, back to the coffee maker for me. I misread the paragraph about overturning the protections as overturning the policy.

/slinks away in shame

apoptotic: *sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

FTFA: "The board in April had initially voted to overturn anti-discrimination protections instigated in 2009 by then governor Timothy Kaine, a Democrat"

Reading comprehension is hard.

El_Frijole_Blanco: Disabled Latino atheist veteran who is currently registered as a democrat. I have adopted 3 kids that where once my foster kids and had 4 other foster kids in my home at one time or another.

//just sayin

GOP response: As a Messican clearly you had foster kids in your home for the government money. Don't teh messicans already have like 10 kids anyway???

As an atheist heathen you merely prove that your greed is more important than "family" values. How do you sleep at night knowing that when you die you will be in a pit of firey hell.

As a disabled individual you are unfit to take care of these children....maybe if you prayed more for a miracle to heal your disability then you wouldn't be disabled and living off of hard working taxpayers monies.


May jebsus save you.

This is a fine example of what happens when Republicans are given an opportunity to govern.

Slives: The only one of those I could even BEGIN to agree with is disability. If you had a disability that would make if difficult for you to raise the child and be an active part of their lives, then yes, I could see limiting that.
About the only good example I can think of is a wheelchair based single parent with no other family around.

Otherwise, the only limitations would be financial and criminal.

Even disability is quite a stretch. What happens when a physically fit biological parent becomes disabled, say in an accident or by disease?
Kids taken away? It's a slippery slope...

Tendancy to over-dew it: apoptotic: *sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

FTFA: "The board in April had initially voted to overturn anti-discrimination protections instigated in 2009 by then governor Timothy Kaine, a Democrat"

Reading comprehension is hard.

When you've been up for 26 hours, yeah apparently it can be. Since I've now revealed myself as being too stupid too live, I'll go do something more fitting to my intellect, like eat paste.

hubiestubert: bulldg4life: So, you want to be against abortion, against adoption for large percentages of people, and against social services for children and the poor.

Why don't we just kill the motherf*ckers after they are born and be done with it?

One thing at a time. Baby steps. A better nation takes time to engineer...

Jews may not own a radio.

And of course there's a typo in that post too. FML

/Lives in central Virginia. Atheist.
//Virginia GOPers have their own special way of viewing the world.

Democrats are subhuman ans should be exterminated.

apoptotic: Tendancy to over-dew it: apoptotic: *sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

FTFA: "The board in April had initially voted to overturn anti-discrimination protections instigated in 2009 by then governor Timothy Kaine, a Democrat"

Reading comprehension is hard.

When you've been up for 26 hours, yeah apparently it can be. Since I've now revealed myself as being too stupid too live, I'll go do something more fitting to my intellect, like eat paste.

Don't feel too bad. I've only been up 19 hours and I had to read it twice to make sure I understood what they were trying to say.

/save me some paste

Whenever I hear someone say, "You can't force me to violate my sincerely held religious belief" I hear "You can't force me to violate my sincerely held religious bigotry".

Face it, farkwit, you're a bigot, you dislike and are uncomfortable around gay people therefore you hide behind your religion to justify it. That doesn't make your bigotry acceptable because you can quote a bible passage. The anti-miscegenation people could quote bible passages too, and they've thoroughly been swept under society's rug... So I'm putting you on notice: You're next. In 20 years your family members will avoid bringing their significant others to family parties because Uncle Religious Bigot will be there spouting off with his bullshiat and embarrassing everyone. But I guess if you're okay with that, I am too. Being relegated to the doldrums of the past and being incapable to mentally evolve is something certain people wear with pride, so enjoy it.

It's really very simple.

If it's a faith-based adoption enterprise, they are within their rights to discriminate based on religion and all the other nonsense that goes along with it, and sadly, that includes marital status and sexual orientation.

However, if a faith-based adoption enterprise is discriminating based on political affiliation, which is apparently exactly how their law stands at the moment, that's clearly not separation of church and state, and therefore should be struck down in court. (Notice I said "should," not "will," since I know what dumbasses the court system is infested with at the moment.)

I likewise disagree with faith-based adoption enterprises discriminating on grounds of disability, but that's a very grey area. Debilitating disabilities might affect the ability to be a proper guardian in real terms, but who's to say what's debilitating or not? It's a mess. But the political thing? Not messy at all. Just don't ever ask "what party do you belong to" or "who did you vote for in X year" and you'll be fine. No need to be even more of a dick about it than you already are.

El_Frijole_Blanco: Disabled Latino atheist veteran who is currently registered as a democrat. I have adopted 3 kids that where once my foster kids and had 4 other foster kids in my home at one time or another.

//just sayin

First of, just wanted to say. Good on you. It takes a special type of person to care for kids that are not biolgically their own, so Kuddos.

Second, this law is absolute bullshiat. I'm a non-citizen so I can't vote for shiat, but thankfully my wife can. Getting her away from her GOP roots

/we need to declare open season on bigots/racists/and ignorant fkers who vote based on religion and not facts
//waiting for a knock @ the door

bulldg4life 2011-12-17 09:07:18 AM
So, you want to be against abortion, against adoption for large percentages of people, and against social services for children and the poor.

That's free-market. The best will find a way to survive.

Slives: The only one of those I could even BEGIN to agree with is disability. If you had a disability that would make if difficult for you to raise the child and be an active part of their lives, then yes, I could see limiting that.

Like being Republican?

Well to be fair, If u are still a democrat after this administration...there is a good chance you're not playing with a full deck.

Northern Virginia is still a decent place. Unfortunately the destructive capability of the brain dead southern right wing retards is like a bull in a china shop and could easily wreck the whole state so probably best to not move there.

mercator_psi: If it's a faith-based adoption enterprise, they are within their rights to discriminate based on religion and all the other nonsense that goes along with it

They have no business managing children who are fiats of the state if they're going to discriminate -- as they're doing so on the state's behalf. If they don't like it, they shouldn't participate.

apoptotic: Tendancy to over-dew it: apoptotic: *sigh*

The Governor that initiated this policy is a Democrat. But subby is kinda right...I wouldn't want Kaine adopting my kid.

FTFA: "The board in April had initially voted to overturn anti-discrimination protections instigated in 2009 by then governor Timothy Kaine, a Democrat"

Reading comprehension is hard.

When you've been up for 26 hours, yeah apparently it can be. Since I've now revealed myself as being too stupid too live, I'll go do something more fitting to my intellect, like eat paste.

For what it's worth, I favorited you for actually owning your mistake. That's something I've rarely seen on the internets.

Pants full of macaroni!!: My bold and fearless prediction for 2012:

The Republican Party will officially declare Democrats, and Liberals in general, an inferior form of life then adopt their stupid policies.

FTFY

DarnoKonrad: mercator_psi: If it's a faith-based adoption enterprise, they are within their rights to discriminate based on religion and all the other nonsense that goes along with it

They have no business managing children who are fiats of the state if they're going to discriminate -- as they're doing so on the state's behalf. If they don't like it, they shouldn't participate.

I totally agree with you, but that's not how the laws are written currently, and sadly I don't see that changing any time soon.