View Full Version : Anyone start a DNC discussion thread yet?
Ultralight
7-22-16, 3:43pm
Here we go!
Ultralight
7-22-16, 3:47pm
The speech I want to hear and simultaneously do not want to hear is from The Bern.
I think the shunning of Debbie Wasserman Schultz from any speaking role at the convention was interesting. Leaked emails seemed to indicate the DNC to be in the tank for Clinton from the start of the campaign. Who this would shock or surprise I'm not sure.
Clinton's VP choice seemed politically smart to me. A Democrat as inoffensive as possible to Republicans who can't stomach Trump seemed tactically wise. Although I have read that certain feminists object to him being Catholic (despite a solid pro-abortion voting record) and at least one New York Times pundit felt that she was taking her black supporters for granted. The wildly Warren wing of the party would no doubt have preferred someone a bit more revolutionary.
catherine
7-24-16, 11:27pm
I think the shunning of Debbie Wasserman Schultz from any speaking role at the convention was interesting. Leaked emails seemed to indicate the DNC to be in the tank for Clinton from the start of the campaign. Who this would shock or surprise I'm not sure.
Absolutely. Schultz tried like hell to sabotage Bernie's campaign all along.
Although I have read that certain feminists object to him being Catholic (despite a solid pro-abortion voting record)
No one is pro-abortion. One may be pro-choice, but never pro-abortion. BTW, I don't get the connection between being feminist and against having a Catholic VP. Didn't we get past that with Kennedy?
ToomuchStuff
7-25-16, 1:05am
No one is pro-abortion.
I certainly would't say that. (rape, incest, some guys over the years, pressing for one)
No one is pro-abortion. One may be pro-choice, but never pro-abortion.
I don't know about that...
Looking at the planetary resources consumed by a First World birth, and global warming, and worldwide economic justice, I think an argument could be made for...limiting the production of new First Worlders....
My wife and I conceived our child about two years ahead of our production schedule, due to a failure of our belt-and-suspenders birth control approach. We decided not to abort. We, however, limited our output to one child. Both of us took surgical measures to make certain of that.
I can see how some people might take the next step...
I certainly would't say that. (rape, incest, some guys over the years, pressing for one)
Why is the child produced of rape or incest deserving of less ethical consideration than any other conception?
I've never quite understood the "except for rape and incest" line of thinking.
ToomuchStuff
7-25-16, 10:35am
Why is the child produced of rape or incest deserving of less ethical consideration than any other conception?
I've never quite understood the "except for rape and incest" line of thinking.
The first thing, is one has to decide for themselves when it is life.
Secondly, maybe you could explain it to me, as I know in my family, that my grandfather was a child of rape and a failed abortion attempt (before legal abortion) and due to that, he was beaten as a child with a horsewhip, to beat the evil out of him. I learned who was the father and "how much like him" I was from a relative I never met, on their deathbed. Not fun, explained a lot. I think abortion might have been a better option then teaching your kid and the generations after them, that they are not wanted, don't deserve to live, and shouldn't have happened.
No one is pro-abortion. One may be pro-choice, but never pro-abortion. BTW, I don't get the connection between being feminist and against having a Catholic VP. Didn't we get past that with Kennedy?
OK. Call it "pro-abortion rights" if you wish.
Apparently, there are circles in which believing abortion is morally wrong but that people should be free to make moral choices for themselves under the law is insufficient. You must yourself believe abortion to be a positive social good to be acceptable.
Blaming the victim is not smiled upon for already born humans. Abortion to prevent the abuse of a child conceived via rape is blaming the unborn victim. Sad.
I'm pro choice politically speaking. But I agree with Bae that ethically speaking, the method of conception should not be the deciding factor on whether it's ok to abort the fetus. The fetus has nothing to do with the circumstances of its creation.
Kaine is an interesting choice. He has sort of meek mild mannered demeanor just by initial impressions. In the Sunday TV interviews with the two of them he spoke well, but seemed to look at Hillary for approval after many of his points. Trump or maybe a guy like Putin might make verbal mince meat of him...or not. It will be interesting to see how Trump chooses to demonize him.
iris lilies
7-25-16, 12:52pm
Kaine is an interesting choice. He has sort of meek mild mannered demeanor just by initial impressions. In the Sunday TV interviews with the two of them he spoke well, but seemed to look at Hillary for approval after many of his points. Trump or maybe a guy like Putin might make verbal mince meat of him...or not. It will be interesting to see how Trump chooses to demonize him.
Kaine went to college is my state but yet, does not root for U of MO. Not ok. Traitor.
Ultralight
7-25-16, 1:25pm
The DNC seems like it will be boring.
Blaming the victim is not smiled upon for already born humans. Abortion to prevent the abuse of a child conceived via rape is blaming the unborn victim. Sad.
I'm pro choice politically speaking. But I agree with Bae that ethically speaking, the method of conception should not be the deciding factor on whether it's ok to abort the fetus. The fetus has nothing to do with the circumstances of its creation.
I agree. Maybe as a vestige of my Catholic roots, from an ethical standpoint I actually think that the life of a child should come before the life of the mother. But from a political standpoint I am pro-choice. Like bae, I was also faced with an untimely pregnancy and could not would not have used abortion as a way to serve my own agenda or my own fears.
TooMuchStuff, I'm so sorry for the pain inflicted on you and your family, but I'm happy you're here.
The DNC seems like it will be boring.
I may watch parts of it. It will be a lot less painful to me watching the Democrats caper about in "a smorgasborg of sleaze, a saturnalia of socialism and a gala of grievance", as I've heard it described.
The RNC was too much like watching your favorite uncle lose his mind for my taste. The DNC should be much more fun. I hear the Sandernistas have been rehearsing for weeks.
TooMuchStuff........I'm glad you're here too!
Ultralight
7-25-16, 3:36pm
I may watch parts of it. It will be a lot less painful to me watching the Democrats caper about in "a smorgasborg of sleaze, a saturnalia of socialism and a gala of grievance", as I've heard it described.
The RNC was too much like watching your favorite uncle lose his mind for my taste. The DNC should be much more fun. I hear the Sandernistas have been rehearsing for weeks.
I see your point. I watched about one night's worth of the RNC, maybe a little more.
To me I just thought: "Wow...They are really going dark -- like apocalyptic!"
But I think the DNC is going to be mostly about trying to make the last 8 years look pretty darn good.
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 3:43pm
I doubt anyone wants to have an abortion. It is a hard choice I am sure. There are many kids that were unplanned but very welcomed into loving families. NOt a choice I would ever make but I am also pro-choice. TMS: sorry for how your family reacted and the situation with your Grandfather is one of the reasons I am pro-choice.
I heard an interview with a pro-lifer discussing Kaine's stance on abortion. Kaine agrees that it is a personal choice and politically is a pro-choice, but he personally is pro-life. The pro-life person being interviewed said she would ask Sen. Kaine why he is personally pro-life, and if the answer is because he believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life, then it should fall in the category of other crimes where a human life is taken. I am pro-choice, but take the point as a good one. I see a strong conflict in being personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. It does not seem ethically correct.
Why is the child produced of rape or incest deserving of less ethical consideration than any other conception?
I've never quite understood the "except for rape and incest" line of thinking.
Not from a pro-life standpoint - but from a "it's not the woman's choice" standpoint, it's still the government choosing when and why.
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 6:30pm
Roger: in regard to it "being ethically not correct" I disagree. He is acknowledging that he does not agree with abortion but feels it is not his right to impose his views on others. I think that is wonderful.
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-16, 6:42pm
I see a strong conflict in being personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. It does not seem ethically correct.
I see a strong conflict on taking a position on the issue and being male.
I see a strong conflict on taking a position on the issue and being male.
It seems common with male politicians and some male supreme court members. Are you saying this is wrong, then?
I see a strong conflict on taking a position on the issue and being male.
That's because you have no consideration for the life being destroyed by abortion. If you did, you'd understand that all humanity has an interest in the issue.
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 7:20pm
My late mom used to say "that if men got pregnant abortion would be a God given right." It is easy to say have the baby yet who will be around to help the poor, young women after the child is born? Pro-lifers only care before the child is born and not after. As a SW I have seen such horrific abuse that some of the kids would have been better off never being born. Women have a right tomake their own choices. When the men start getting pregnant then the choice will be theirs alone.
My late mom used to say "that if men got pregnant abortion would be a God given right." It is easy to say have the baby yet who will be around to help the poor, young women after the child is born? Pro-lifers only care before the child is born and not after. As a SW I have seen such horrific abuse that some of the kids would have been better off never being born. Women have a right tomake their own choices. When the men start getting pregnant then the choice will be theirs alone.
So why limit abortion to pre-birth? Shouldn't women have the right to after birth abortions as well? http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
ApatheticNoMore
7-25-16, 7:31pm
I quite literally think males are unable to really think about the issue. It's like asking one's cat to do algebra. Cats are (as far as we know) not capable of algebra and men are not capable of getting pregnant.
That's because you have no consideration for the life being destroyed by abortion.
you have no consideration for the life being destroyed by pregnancy.
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 7:31pm
No. I actually believe that women need to make the decision early too. I don't think that at 6 months abortion should be allowed unless the mother's life is in danger. What starts as a clump of cells becomes a person and I think when women wait to long it should be game over.
My late mom used to say "that if men got pregnant abortion would be a God given right." It is easy to say have the baby yet who will be around to help the poor, young women after the child is born? Pro-lifers only care before the child is born and not after. As a SW I have seen such horrific abuse that some of the kids would have been better off never being born. Women have a right tomake their own choices. When the men start getting pregnant then the choice will be theirs alone.
Unless a person takes the stand that males are basically losers, women may bear the brunt of child bearing, but men share the responsibility of parenting. If I were the father of an unborn, from a genetic, fatherhood and parenting standpoint I would want to share in making choices that would affect my child's future. Nine months is only a part of a child's life.
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 7:35pm
ANM: you are so right. They have no concept of what is really involved, etc. Also no one has to raise a child-it can be given up for adoption. If I was queen of the US I would say that either abort by 5 months or give up the baby if you don't want it. There now I have solved this problem:))
Teacher Terry
7-25-16, 7:37pm
rogar, if the parents are at opposing viewpoints only one person has the final say and that is the person carrying that child. Sorry. Men are not all losers.
rogar, if the parents are at opposing viewpoints only one person has the final say and that is the person carrying that child. Not to seriously disagree, but why do you think that?
iris lilies
7-25-16, 8:19pm
I agree. Maybe as a vestige of my Catholic roots, from an ethical standpoint I actually think that the life of a child should come before the life of the mother. But from a political standpoint I am pro-choice. Like bae, I was also faced with an untimely pregnancy and could not would not have used abortion as a way to serve my own agenda or my own fears.
TooMuchStuff, I'm so sorry for the pain inflicted on you and your family, but I'm happy you're here.
Whoah, I can't agree with Catholic
church on that one, but I am sure their position is well reasoned.
There are so many issues associated with fertility, sperm, eggs, embryos, surrogates and the legality of all that I am rather grateful the old men in skirts, the priests, study issues and come to a position. Though I wont necesssarily agree with them, it is good to know that a respected group has reviewed all of the issues associated with them so,as to lead discussin.
The Abortion debate is boring to me anymore, but there are so many related issues that are fascinating that are not dscussed in casual chats, both online and IRL.
I heard a radio show about a woman who had made frozen embryos with her husband, and the two had a signed agreement that the embryos would always belong to her should they split. She had a pregnancy and delivered healthy twins.
later she and the husband broke up.He wanted the embroys destroyed because he did not want to be responsible for more children. She refused. They went to court. The laws that govern this sort of thing are property laws, and they vary from state to state. Apparently case law is sparse on this type of property, so lawsuits about frozen embryo ownership (and implied disposal) are breaking new ground.
then there are the surrogate pregnancies where things go wrong. The fetus is dentified with multiple birth defects, and the adoptive parents dont want the baby after all. What happens then? Who gets the baby, or who has to take the baby?
Then there are babies born severly damaged.Should parents have the final say on treatment for these babies? I read a sad book about a baby who was born without most of his brain. He had enough of it to run breathng functins. His parents decided to withhold food and hydration. It took him several weeks to die. That was horrific! But they firmly believed that he would suffer greatly if he lived a longer life. There was another book by a mother who gave birth to 23 week old twins. One twin died right away, the other was hospitalized for a year, was mentally and physically compromised as a child, then died at age 8 from a physical injury to his internal organs that was done as part f keeping hm alive.
the cost of keeping these children alive, and then their pain and suffering just seems horrible to me. I cant i agne that amyne would advocate more strongly for ese children than their parents. doctors are intersted in ficng technical problems with them, the whole,child is of less i terest. One of the mothers said something anout wise women now know that if their labor starts before 24 weeks, stay home and deluver the baby who will then die. Otherwise hospital procedure (in most all hoapitals) require treatment that I,cmsider heroic. Letting mature take its course seems more gemtle amd rational, to me.
I would like to see this discussion move from abortion to talk about other related issues, for a change.
Ultralight
7-25-16, 8:20pm
you have no consideration for the life being destroyed by pregnancy.
Amen sistah! I am your ally!
Ultralight
7-25-16, 8:20pm
It must be immigrant night at the DNC! Wow! Mucho espanol!
iris lilies
7-25-16, 10:55pm
The emails coming out of the Wikileaks scandel are annoying.
Just a few:
one of the DNC people makes fun the of the name LaQueenia who is someone doing some work for a DNC event.
another one debates whether to flash Bernie's atheism or his Jewishness in front of her peeps in a
southern state,to help Hillary, you know.
anither dialog makes fun of a $5,000 donor who wants a photo with himself and President Obama. Not enough cash there, buddy, try harder.
They are ungrateful little brats.
ToomuchStuff
7-26-16, 1:06am
Blaming the victim is not smiled upon for already born humans. Abortion to prevent the abuse of a child conceived via rape is blaming the unborn victim. Sad.
I'm pro choice politically speaking. But I agree with Bae that ethically speaking, the method of conception should not be the deciding factor on whether it's ok to abort the fetus. The fetus has nothing to do with the circumstances of its creation.
In a way it is simply the same thing that people (example gimmeasimplelife) are doing with good and bad police. Guilt by association.
I know of two other kids born because of violence and have seen, certainly in one of those cases, how a boyfriend treated them. (a reason I have a dislike of religion)
But I am not sure I would agree with you that the method of conception, shouldn't have any bearing. In the cases of incest, the lack of diversity, (from what I have seen, been explained, etc), affects the risk of birth defects. Risks go up of those when one hits 40, generally, would one consider that as well?
So why limit abortion to pre-birth? Shouldn't women have the right to after birth abortions as well? http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
Society already has after birth abortions. They are called executions.
Political survey once sent by local representative, once asked about should the state pay for abortions. I never received another after I explained, that we execute people so why not abortion. Granted the state paying welfare for the kid, is probably cheaper then what we pay for someone on death row, but this can be an economic issue (as insurance companies can put values on life and limb).
iris lillies post, made me think of a case that made the news a while back. In the one iris mentioned, dealing with property, the lawyer should have made it clear that if a divorce happened, there needs to be a surrogate clause. The news case I am thinking of, is someone said they would be a surrogate for a couple (think it was a gay couple) and when that couple divorced, the court ordered the sperm donor to pay child support, because they didn't do the thing properly.
This thread is also making me think of China's old economic policy of one child per family.
Then it brings up and makes me want to watch Monty Python:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bipn6K200JI
Ultralight
7-26-16, 7:49am
then there are the surrogate pregnancies where things go wrong. The fetus is dentified with multiple birth defects, and the adoptive parents dont want the baby after all. What happens then? Who gets the baby, or who has to take the baby?
Then there are babies born severly damaged.Should parents have the final say on treatment for these babies? I read a sad book about a baby who was born without most of his brain. He had enough of it to run breathng functins. His parents decided to withhold food and hydration. It took him several weeks to die. That was horrific! But they firmly believed that he would suffer greatly if he lived a longer life. There was another book by a mother who gave birth to 23 week old twins. One twin died right away, the other was hospitalized for a year, was mentally and physically compromised as a child, then died at age 8 from a physical injury to his internal organs that was done as part f keeping hm alive.
the cost of keeping these children alive, and then their pain and suffering just seems horrible to me. I cant i agne that amyne would advocate more strongly for ese children than their parents. doctors are intersted in ficng technical problems with them, the whole,child is of less i terest. One of the mothers said something anout wise women now know that if their labor starts before 24 weeks, stay home and deluver the baby who will then die. Otherwise hospital procedure (in most all hoapitals) require treatment that I,cmsider heroic. Letting mature take its course seems more gemtle amd rational, to me.
Well, where you and most decent people would see a horrible tragedy -- a baby born with horrible defects -- the Catholics and the Fundamentalists see a miracle of life! And remember, the good lord will never give you more of a burden than you can bear!
Well, where you and most decent people would see a horrible tragedy -- a baby born with horrible defects -- the Catholics and the Fundamentalists see a miracle of life! And remember, the good lord will never give you more of a burden than you can bear!I have a grandson with multiple birth defects. You don't have to be a Catholic or Fundamentalist to know that he is a miracle of life, perhaps all you really need is compassion.
another one debates whether to flash Bernie's atheism or his Jewishness in front of her peeps in a
southern state,to help Hillary, you know.
Damned if you Jew and and damned if you don't?
Ultralight
7-26-16, 11:02am
It seemed to me that the DNC last night was like a parade of people and stuff that the GOP profoundly dislikes -- immigrants, gays, lesbians, minorities, feminists, healthcare, etc.
It was like the Dems were really trying to rub it in the GOP's face.
Bernie made it sound like he had negotiated compromise with Hillary on some of his issues, like free tuition, breaking up the big financial institutions, and a move toward universal health care. Whether that's the case, I guess we'll have to wait to see. It would probably be a good strategy to bring the Bernie supporters out of limbo. They certainly broke into their arsenal of Trump bashing, which I guess you would expect after the vitriol from the RNC.
There was some awfully fancy talking going on, but I was not really inspired by anything.
It seemed to me that the DNC last night was like a parade of people and stuff that the GOP profoundly dislikes -- immigrants, gays, lesbians, minorities, feminists, healthcare, etc.
It was like the Dems were really trying to rub it in the GOP's face.The GOP doesn't dislike any of the groups the DNC is featuring, they just see them as people rather than a preferred demographic. That insistence on assigning a box to individuals is one of the reasons I could never be a Democrat.
It seemed to me that the DNC last night was like a parade of people and stuff that the GOP profoundly dislikes -- immigrants, gays, lesbians, minorities, feminists, healthcare, etc.
It was like the Dems were really trying to rub it in the GOP's face.
I dob't think it was that. It's just that the Democrats have a lot of boxes to check.
Tossing a Clinton loyalist under the bus.
Speaking in tongues.
The presentation of the formerly funny Hollywood people.
The fingers-crossed declarations of unity.
The brandishing of the promised goodies.
The ritual declaration that if conditions are unidentical anywhere it must be the result of wrongdoing.
The mandatory expression of horror at the opposition.
The honoring of the Black Votes Matter movement.
The prayer for the coming of that glorious day when we all look different but think the same.
Pretty routine stuff for a DNC.
Ultralight
7-26-16, 11:45am
The GOP doesn't dislike any of the groups the DNC is featuring, they just see them as people rather than a preferred demographic. That insistence on assigning a box to individuals is one of the reasons I could never be a Democrat.
This is false. When the GOP says they don't think gays should be getting married, do they see them as people or a demographic?
Zing!
This is false. When the GOP says they don't think gays should be getting married, do they see them as people or a demographic?
Zing!As people changing the definition of marriage.
Your Zing has no Zip.
Ultralight
7-26-16, 11:53am
As people changing the definition of marriage.
Your Zing has no Zip.
When the GOP wanted to prevent transpeople from using the bathroom of their choice, did they categorize them as transpeople? If they are not categorizing them, then how can they distinguish who they want to go to which bathroom?
Alan... your argument is rapidly falling apart.
When the GOP wanted to prevent transpeople from using the bathroom of their choice, did they categorize them as transpeople? If they are not categorizing them, then how can they distinguish who they want to go to which bathroom?
Alan... your argument is rapidly falling apart.
Many people in and out of the GOP remain concerned with potential predators taking advantage of this latest round of political correctness. My argument isn't falling apart, you're just trying to place it in the wrong box as you are wont to do.
Teacher Terry
7-26-16, 4:54pm
When is the last time that a transgender person attacked someone in the bathroom? TG does not mean pervert or pedophile. Roger: to answer your other question you can not tell someone what to do with their body. You only control your own.
I'm imagining the outrage if someone looking like, say, Caitlin Jenner strolled into a mensroom somewhere. People tend to use the facility that matches their outward appearance--fewer waves are made that way.
Teacher Terry
7-26-16, 5:20pm
Jane-exactly!
As people changing the definition of marriage.
Your Zing has no Zip.
You mean like people changing the definition of marriage - to allow divorce? To allow remarriage? To allow marrying someone outside your faith? Outside your color? Upping the required ages for marriage to something closer to reasonable? Marriage has changed in a lot of ways.
BTW, while gay folk did file lawsuits and stuff, they weren't the ones who redefined what the state recognizes as marriage.
Marriage has changed in a lot of ways.
Yes it has, and change is often contentious. Disagreement doesn't equate to hate the way UA implies, but I suspect many don't see the difference.
Ultralight
7-26-16, 7:53pm
Yes it has, and change is often contentious. Disagreement doesn't equate to hate the way UA implies, but I suspect many don't see the difference.
Many oppressive white folks during segregation would say they did not hate black folks, they just had a policy disagreement.
Many oppressive white folks during segregation would say they did not hate black folks, they just had a policy disagreement.
Yes, and in many cases they were right.
rosarugosa
7-26-16, 8:17pm
Toomuchstuff: I love your video!
Yes it has, and change is often contentious. Disagreement doesn't equate to hate the way UA implies, but I suspect many don't see the difference.
I'd say change is always contentious. And not changing is always contentious. Pretty much always there is going to be enough people that feel differently to make everything contentious.
Although disagreement does not have to equate to hate, many people do choose to make it that way. And while that shouldn't be generalized, it can't be ignored.
The DNC, Right or Wrong, When Hillary was nominated I was moved inside the same way I was when the President was nominated in 2008. I never thought in my lifetime I would see either happen. Now I focus on the facts as I wait till the hoopla is over.
Ultralight
7-27-16, 7:43am
Yes, and in many cases they were right.
The oppressors might say: "This is not because we hate you that we oppress you, it is because we simply disagree."
But I don't think the oppressors get to define hate, I think the oppressed do.
Slavery, segregation, gay bashing, transphobia -- these things come oppress because they are derived from hate and fear.
Alan, perhaps you identify most with the oppressors, could that be?
I tend to identify with the oppressed, so that is who I root for!
Ultralight
7-27-16, 7:48am
This is interesting! The first trans person to speak at a convention!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-speaker-democratic-convention_us_5797cacce4b0d3568f84ea18?section=
But I don't think the oppressors get to define hate, I think the oppressed do.
Who gets to define oppression? Who gets to be the arbiter of victimhood and perform the delicate calculus of assigning guilt and innocence in the correct proportions?
I have to admit, I had a brief tremulous moment last night watching the Big Dog make his pitch. As that sentimental, predatory bag of sweaty appetites emanated his grotesque bloviations, I almost broke. Perhaps, I thought, there is a lesser evil. Perhaps the uncouth Caesarism of Trump would be preferable to the low dishonest years of pre-sold favors and optioned ethics this crowd has in store for us.
I just read FiveThirtyEight has the two contenders very close on the electoral vote count. The price of a protest vote on my part could be relatively high.
But now, in the cold light of morning, I see I also need to look toward a more hopeful future when principled conservatism is once more taken seriously in this country. We may not reach that promised land again in my lifetime, but I owe it to posterity to use what little influence I can deploy to continue the struggle against Leviathan. Perhaps four years of Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the shock we need to see that integrity matters.
Ultralight
7-27-16, 9:35am
I have to admit, I had a brief tremulous moment last night watching the Big Dog make his pitch. As that sentimental, predatory bag of sweaty appetites emanated his grotesque bloviations, I almost broke. Perhaps, I thought, there is a lesser evil. Perhaps the uncouth Caesarism of Trump would be preferable to the low dishonest years of pre-sold favors and optioned ethics this crowd has in store for us.
I just read FiveThirtyEight has the two contenders very close on the electoral vote count. The price of a protest vote on my part could be relatively high.
But now, in the cold light of morning, I see I also need to look toward a more hopeful future when principled conservatism is once more taken seriously in this country. We may not reach that promised land again in my lifetime, but I owe it to posterity to use what little influence I can deploy to continue the struggle against Leviathan. Perhaps four years of Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the shock we need to see that integrity matters.
This is well-written and funny!
This is well-written and funny!
Please feel free to enjoy my pain.
I'm starting to think I may spend the rest of my life on the political fringe. How do you stand it?
Ultralight
7-27-16, 10:00am
Please feel free to enjoy my pain.
I'm starting to think I may spend the rest of my life on the political fringe. How do you stand it?
I assure you that your time on the fringe will be short-lived, about 4 years. haha
I assure you that your time on the fringe will be short-lived, about 4 years. haha
Such is my prayerful hope. But we live in a corrupt age. To be realistic, if the GOP continues nominating crypto-Democrats at the top of the ticket it may be time for such as I to break away in the same way the primordial Republicans did from the Whigs.
Ultralight
7-27-16, 2:21pm
This is kind of hilarious and awesome!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/why-terry-mcauliffes-tpp-gaffe-is-so-damaging-for-hillary-clinton/#comments
ApatheticNoMore
7-27-16, 2:42pm
of course she's support it (although Obama may pass it first), people are really not paying any attention if they believe otherwise.
1) An anti-TPP stand proposed by Sanders delegates for the Democratic platform is voted down by Hillary delegates and isn't allowed in the platform. It's not like the platform is binding anyway but it's not allowed in. This is the strongest evidence
2) Anti-TPP signs again by Sanders delegates are reported being confiscated at the Democratic convention. If Hillary was really against the TPP why would anyone possible object to anti-TPP signs?
So if the TPP is still an issue then two candidates claim to be against it: Jill Stein and Donald Trump. I'd suggest voting for one of them.
Ultralight
7-27-16, 2:55pm
The Clintons will indeed say anything to get elected. lol
This is kind of hilarious and awesome!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/why-terry-mcauliffes-tpp-gaffe-is-so-damaging-for-hillary-clinton/#comments
Didn't Mark Twain say something about always telling the truth so you'd have less to remember?
Ultralight
7-27-16, 3:43pm
Didn't Mark Twain say something about always telling the truth so you'd have less to remember?
I thought David Lee Roth said that...
"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln
"You need a good memory to be a good liar." My mother-in-law.
OK, you made me look it up. Twain had much to say on the subject of truth.
“If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.”
- Notebook, 1894
“Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.”
- Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar
‘I don't mind what the opposition say of me so long as they don't tell the truth about me. But when they descend to telling the truth about me I consider that this is taking an unfair advantage.”
- Speech, 1879
‘Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.”
- Notebook, 1902
Whoah, I can't agree with Catholic
church on that one, but I am sure their position is well reasoned.
I heard a radio show about a woman who had made frozen embryos with her husband, and the two had a signed agreement that the embryos would always belong to her should they split. She had a pregnancy and delivered healthy twins.
later she and the husband broke up.He wanted the embroys destroyed because he did not want to be responsible for more children. She refused. They went to court. The laws that govern this sort of thing are property laws, and they vary from state to state. Apparently case law is sparse on this type of property, so lawsuits about frozen embryo ownership (and implied disposal) are breaking new ground.
..
I think that's an interesting question. when talking about a frozen embryo, you are talking about something that both partners had equal 'work', if you will, in creating it without any extra effort or inconvenience or health risks from either. I would think they would have equal ownership of this third party 'item'. So, in my opinion equal say. However, if they have a contract that the woman gets all rights to this embryo, even without implanting, then I suppose the courts must take that into consideration.
That's because you have no consideration for the life being destroyed by abortion. If you did, you'd understand that all humanity has an interest in the issue.
Oh. So you do support the right of the government to force a man, the biological father, to donate a kidney? Bone marrow? Blood? Force a blood transfusion, even if it was just a one night stand? Even if the guy wasn't aware/didn't want the kid?
Oh. So you do support the right of the government to force a man, the biological father, to donate a kidney? Bone marrow? Blood? Force a blood transfusion, even if it was just a one night stand? Even if the guy wasn't aware/didn't want the kid?
I'm not in favor of government forcing anyone to do anything. I am in favor of children having the same right to life in the womb as they do outside. Now we could debate at what point a fetus becomes a child but that might run the risk of adding another person to the argument that only the woman has a right to choose.
So then you must be in favor of letting the woman decide whether to have an abortion since you aren't in favor of the government forcing her to donate her womb for its use for nine months? Or are you only in favor of the government forcing some people to do things they don't want to do, but not others?
Oh. So you do support the right of the government to force a man, the biological father, to donate a kidney? Bone marrow? Blood? Force a blood transfusion, even if it was just a one night stand? Even if the guy wasn't aware/didn't want the kid?
If the argument is solely about life, why does it have be limited to a mother and father? What right should anyone have to choose? Endless opportunities and resources available for "life" - we just have to take the resources from whoever won't give them up and put them where they are needed.
So then you must be in favor of letting the woman decide whether to have an abortion since you aren't in favor of the government forcing her to donate her womb for its use for nine months? Or are you only in favor of the government forcing some people to do things they don't want to do, but not others?
I guess somebody loses no matter what. Let's extend the argument to other areas, if you believe that the government is forcing a woman to donate her womb by not allowing her to kill the child, would you also agree that if the government forces you to labor 5 months of each year to pay your fair share of taxes, you should have the ability to kill the tax collector when they come for you? Or, if you're drafted into the military, against your will, should you have the option of using deadly force against your Drill Instructor?
If your argument is that the government's threat of force prevents your free will, does it always give you the right to take a life?
Interesting question to ponder. I guess the answer depends on 1) whether killing someone is the only option, and 2) what is the government actually forcing you to do. In your first scenario the government isn't forcing you to work, they are only forcing you to write a check. If you don't want to work you can certainly choose not to. And if you do want to work and choose to is being forced to write a check really the same level of force as being forced to carry something unwanted in your womb for nine months with even more additional governmental threats if you behave in ways deemed unacceptable to a pregnant woman such as falling down the stairs or driving after drinking to only half the level deemed unsafe for driving*? The draft is a different situation, and frankly one I'm pretty much against. And hopefully/probably one that we won't ever face again since automation and improvements to military technology is, as with other areas, reducing the need for large quantities of cannon fodder the same as other industries need less and less low level manual labor.
*https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/02/16/for-pregnant-women-two-sets-rights-one-body/5Pd6zntIViRBZ9QxhiQgFJ/story.html
DNC: Hillary's speech, Wow actually almost made be cry for good reasons unlike Trump's for the wrong reasons. SO very different more so than any in the past. For me after this is over the real race till November begins.
Ultralight
7-29-16, 7:22am
DNC: Hillary's speech, Wow actually almost made be cry ...
Sorry to hear that...
I thought the highlight of the DNC was the talk by Chelsea. Parts of the campaign were well orchestrated to attempt to give Hillary a personality and make her seem like a real person. The marketing aspect of this was too obvious to me and there were parts that hinted of the Checkers speech, but I though Chelsea was mostly sincere and from the heart. The whole evening was a slick production with the soothing voice of Morgan Freeman, the rough talking Marine general, and the lady who was injured in the 9/11 attack, but at least in terms of humanitarian efforts it made Trump's RNC pale in comparison.
One day recently I just happened to stumble on the campaign speeches of the 1952 Ike/Nixon platform. The issues were different, although less different than I might have guessed, but the tone and political rhetoric seemed nearly identical.
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-16, 8:41am
talk is cheap or wait in the case of donations to the Hillary campaign very very expensive. Money talks ...
I guess somebody loses no matter what. Let's extend the argument to other areas, if you believe that the government is forcing a woman to donate her womb by not allowing her to kill the child, would you also agree that if the government forces you to labor 5 months of each year to pay your fair share of taxes, you should have the ability to kill the tax collector when they come for you? Or, if you're drafted into the military, against your will, should you have the option of using deadly force against your Drill Instructor?
If your argument is that the government's threat of force prevents your free will, does it always give you the right to take a life?
Yes, there is a 'loser', if you want to frame it that way. And it is a shame, but it's the reality of life.
One body, two entities. Who gets to say what happens to the body? The owner of the body or the parasite growing inside. (Parasite because that's essentially what it is until it is viable, but the basic definition of parasite) Talking about a zygote as if it were a living breathing person is like calling a fried egg a chicken. It may be a potential person, but it is not viable or even recognizable as a person. At the stage where most abortions occur, there simply is no there, there.
Again, if you oppose forcing men to donate blood or kidneys or tissue to save that life when it is in fact a person, living, breathing, functioning, then how can you say we should be able to force a woman to carry for nine months a being who isn't even capable of independent life until many months along in the process.
She should be forced to 'save' a life but the man gets a free ride? How does that work?
I do agree with cut off dates. No I'm not for infanticide, as no pro-choice person is. When that fetus becomes viable and capable of independent life (5 months is really stretching it and it certainly needs a lot of help and support to maintain life, but they do it now days) then restrictions are certainly warranted. Again, most pro-choice folks agree with this. But the vast vast majority of abortions are performed before this. Trust me, pregnant women don't just arbitrarily decide to end a pregnancy after this. If they have gone this far, they are in it to go.
The cruelest tactic of the no-choice people are these so called late term abortions. The way this movement disregards the reality of these very very sad occurrences reinforces and reveals the sham of their so called christian beliefs and compassion. To throw hate and nastiness towards people at the lowest point of their lives is beyond cruel.
The cruelest tactic of the no-choice people are these so called late term abortions. The way this movement disregards the reality of these very very sad occurrences reinforces and reveals the sham of their so called christian beliefs and compassion. To throw hate and nastiness towards people at the lowest point of their lives is beyond cruel.Crueler than killing a child?
Teacher Terry
7-29-16, 1:06pm
Catherine, I agree with you 100%. Alan: a clump of cells is not a child for quite a while. I would say abortion should be legal up to 4 months and then after that only if the mother's life is at stake or the child is so severely disabled that they will die soon after birth, etc. I spent my life working with people with disabilities and most had lives worth living but some don't. You can be so intellectually disabled that you spend your entire life in a crib being fed and diapered and can't even have a toy because you will eat it. This used to be called profoundly MR. These people do not have quality of life but again it is up to the woman to decide. When one person disagrees someone must decide. I doubt that most woman take these decisions lightly. I think they must be agonizing and so thankful I have never had to face this type of decision. I also think once people have completed their families they should take surgical action to ensure no more kids and that birth control should be free to poor people to help them postpone babies until they are ready.
Crueler than killing a child?
Late-term abortions are only done in rare medical cases; you can check the literature. There are far too few providers and facilities for people to perform them on a whim.
Note: the term "child" applies to viable, post-birth offspring. The vast majority of abortions are about as fraught with mayhem as a tonsillectomy.
Alan: a clump of cells is not a child for quite a while. I would say abortion should be legal up to 4 months and then after that only if the mother's life is at stake or the child is so severely disabled that they will die soon after birth, etc. I spent my life working with people with disabilities and most had lives worth living but some don't. You can be so intellectually disabled that you spend your entire life in a crib being fed and diapered and can't even have a toy because you will eat it. This used to be called profoundly MR. These people do not have quality of life but again it is up to the woman to decide.
I agree! I'm not sure what the appropriate cut off should be but I feel fairly confident that many routine abortions are completed after the time that clump of cells becomes a child. I choose to err on the side of caution.
Personal experience has led me to question our current abortion policies. My oldest grandson was born with disabilities, he's now 19 and a very happy, loving and much loved child, but he's also one of those children many would have counseled to abort if the nature of his disabilities had been known prior to birth. My youngest grandson, now aged 14, was born perfectly healthy and remains so although the medical establishment and several support groups counseled my daughter to not take chances given the problems with her previous child and overwhelmingly recommended that she abort him, one even during her third trimester.
I'm convinced many children are aborted for convenience and peace of mind, which is made easier and even encouraged by those who refuse to take that child into account. Somebody has to speak for them and I believe it to be a personal affront to those two boys if it's not me.
Teacher Terry
7-29-16, 2:20pm
Since you have a disabled GS have you looked into the bureau of vocational rehabilitation for assistance with school, job training, etc? It is a federal program run by the states that help PWD"S become employable. In some states it is the "department" instead of bureau. They can do vocational testing/career counseling (what I used to do) and then assign a counselor who will coordinate/pay for any services he will need to be successful. It is an awesome program.
Since you have a disabled GS have you looked into the bureau of vocational rehabilitation for assistance with school, job training, etc? It is a federal program run by the states that help PWD"S become employable. In some states it is the "department" instead of bureau. They can do vocational testing/career counseling (what I used to do) and then assign a counselor who will coordinate/pay for any services he will need to be successful. It is an awesome program.
Yes, he's starting work in a few weeks doing light janitorial and mailroom duties in a small local company. He's excited about it and we're all anxious, hoping he'll do well.
a clump of cells is not a child for quite a while. I would say abortion should be legal up to 4 months...
That's purely a matter opinion and the core of the abortion debate. I believe that the human organism comes with a soul that is exclusive of biological function. I don't think anyone knows when a fetus becomes a human "child", or for those so inclined, when that soul becomes integral to the biological organism. The early embryo is "life". When it can be called human is unknown.
Teacher Terry
7-29-16, 5:23pm
Alan: they can also pay for a job coach until he learns his job tasks and then they slowly fade out. Then if in the future his job duties change they can come back in and help. If they are not providing a job coach and he starts to have issues then ask for one. It is so important for people to learn to be workers at this age because if kept home and sheltered it really limits their life options. I have seen people live independently with supports and some of them you would never believe it to be possible. They probably will also try to build in natural supports at the workplace (ie: employees that are willing to help the worker get back on track if they get off), etc. The relationships that can be built and the kindness people show others can be awesome.
Roger: no scientific opinion on my part at all. I don't have a scientific bone in my body. For me personally I would never have a abortion but I want the option open for others.
Roger: no scientific opinion on my part at all. I don't have a scientific bone in my body. For me personally I would never have a abortion but I want the option open for others.
I don't think science has the answer. My take is just opinion, too. There are other people who take their inspiration from religion. However, a child is just a larger clump of cells than a fetus. If you think that life goes on after death without the physical body, who is to say how early in human development the same life starts?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.