Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

That said, for all three to test positive not long after they adjourned, think it was spread right there in the Senate floor?

Given the name of the states that they were from, this is probably what happened. Might be beneficial to resort to Zoom calls like some courts are doing.

 

But anyways, there was an bomb threat in D.C. earlier. Someone wanted to talk to Biden about withdrawing from Afghanistan or he'll detonate his van of Tannerite. But it's been peacefully resolved with the guy arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Armchair General said:

But anyways, there was an bomb threat in D.C. earlier. Someone wanted to talk to Biden about withdrawing from Afghanistan or he'll detonate his van of Tannerite. But it's been peacefully resolved with the guy arrested.

Such a weird dynamic when the Taliban can take over a country without firing a shot, while Americans are willing to blow themselves up to get us back over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2021 at 5:45 PM, Excellen Browning said:

While I admire the effort, why do you folks still take ninjamonkey seriously?

So having a conservative opinion is against the rules is it now? When did happen exactly?

Anyway, I was right about the whole 'defund the police = more crime' statement that I made, as the areas that have defunded the police (like Chicago) have had enormous spikes in the crime rate.

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

Such a weird dynamic when the Taliban can take over a country without firing a shot,

I wouldn't exactly call it a peaceful takeover, since refugees are desperate enough to climb onto the outside of a C-17 as it's taking off.

 

21 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

So having a conservative opinion is against the rules is it now? When did happen exactly?

It's been like that ever since Trump had indirectly caused that riot by saying that the election was rigged or something. I swear, he's just doing that just for notoriety.

 

21 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Anyway, I was right about the whole 'defund the police = more crime' statement that I made, as the areas that have defunded the police (like Chicago) have had enormous spikes in the crime rate

It's true for Portland when CHAZ was established. And there were increased reports of gunfire within George Floyd Square because the activists had literally barricaded the place from the emergency services.

 

As for Chicago, I'm not entirely sure. But it certainly somewhere where nobody would want to live, considering how it consistently ranks above the national homicide rate. And as of this year, it's going for the record for the most carjackings in the country.

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

I wouldn't exactly call it a peaceful takeover,

 

I didn't either. I mean it's a takeover, to start. Not a democratic regime change. But compare it to our own insurrection in January where there were bodies.

Quote

since refugees are desperate enough to climb onto the outside of a C-17 as it's taking off.

Yeah, but admit it. When Trump was elected you briefly considered a move to Canada. People don't respond well to this sort of thing and I can't think of a reason why they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NinjaMonkey said:

So having a conservative opinion is against the rules is it now?

no but you've been on this forum for over a decade now and we know you're kind of concern trolling

especially since we're aware that leftist messaging is garbage. chicago crime rates have little to do with police funding given that there was a marked decrease in crime in new york when the police reduced proactive policing -- https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html. nothing to do with police funding so much as there's a lot to it.

it's very difficult to take you seriously when your baseline view of this forum's beliefs are "defund the police" and the baseline conversation for the rest of us is "police reform". also because i actually did tell you that you had some shit line of logic earlier in the thread (and even explained it!) and you didn't follow up at all. I also want to point out that people shouting "defund the police" are very likely to believe democrats are right wingers.

so no, don't play this card lmao. I don't even care to respond to argue this point, I'm just explaining to bystanders where excellen is coming from

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

so no, don't play this card lmao. I don't even care to respond to argue this point, I'm just explaining to bystanders where excellen is coming from

He's useful, in his own way.  He repeats some talking point, everyone else rips it apart.  It's a reminder that while there should be a conservative opinion, it's not tenable in its current form.

That being said, certain assertions are a straight-up ban, like pretending that January 6 was anything other than an insurrection/coup.  Certain powers are doing their best to muddy that point in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

So having a conservative opinion is against the rules is it now? When did happen exactly?

Anyway, I was right about the whole 'defund the police = more crime' statement that I made, as the areas that have defunded the police (like Chicago) have had enormous spikes in the crime rate.

Nice self-victimization and good job putting words in my mouth.

I'd also like to see you back up this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'd also like to see you back up this claim.

For starters, homicides have been on the decline for the past two decades, with the occasional spike. But it's been blamed on the old guard being released on parole, a need for better training for the police, community outreach, and being forced into lockdown. And I haven't found the statistics for this year, yet.

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

So having a conservative opinion is against the rules is it now? When did happen exactly?

It never was, but it's good to be cautious about how things are worded, especially when it comes to stuff as divisive as politics. 

Sorry to add to your list of notifications; I just don't wanna make you feel like you're being attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade is dead. They haven't said the magic words yet, but the scotus letting the Texas anti-abortion law stand is beyond the pale.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

Roe v Wade is dead. They haven't said the magic words yet, but the scotus letting the Texas anti-abortion law stand is beyond the pale.

The incestuous relation between politics and the courts in America has always been really strange. 

You have a law for decades, decided by the judiciary and setting legal precedents for a long time, but then suddenly another party installs judges of their own political leaning and then suddenly the law that has been around for decades could be repealed on political rather than legal grounds. 

Such a judicial system seems more of a political institution than a legal one. Presidents can name judges for life as a reward for loyalty, senators can make or break the judges and the political stances of the judges is the primary factor on whether or not the judges get chosen or not. That's a really strange system if the goal is supposed to keep the judicial and political sectors separate .

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now Texas also has this in the works:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00039I.htm

No irony lost that this declares:

Quote
(4)  a primary role of our government is to protect
  individual liberties, among which medical freedom and bodily
  autonomy are certainly numbered;

Protect your decision to not use a mask or not get the vaccine? "You bet! Your body, your choice!"

Protect your decision to get an abortion? "Ha! Don't be crazy, woman!"

---

Other Republican states are also pondering to implement similar anti-abortion laws now.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Other Republican states are also pondering to implement similar anti-abortion laws now.

Well, all it should take is the public threatening to vote blue, next time, to change their minds. But I doubt if something like that will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of bodily autonomy actually seems a bit ironic when it comes to abortion. Obviously, the mother has the choice to do with the baby what she wants, but at the same time, the baby isn't given any choice. Of course, the baby isn't actually capable of making any decisions yet, so it's up to the mother to make that decision, even if it could go against the will of the child if they were to theoretically make it to the age when they can make a choice for themselves. It's a bit of a paradox.

My guess is that the ideas behind the anti-abortion laws are that it's favoring the bodily autonomy of the child over the mother. Well, that, and that abortion snuffs out a life before it even gets the chance to live.

I certainly don't agree with abortion, but I understand the individual circumstances that would lead to that decision are different from person to person. It's not my choice to make, so it really shouldn't be the law's choice, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, indigoasis said:

The idea of bodily autonomy actually seems a bit ironic when it comes to abortion. Obviously, the mother has the choice to do with the baby what she wants, but at the same time, the baby isn't given any choice. Of course, the baby isn't actually capable of making any decisions yet, so it's up to the mother to make that decision, even if it could go against the will of the child if they were to theoretically make it to the age when they can make a choice for themselves. It's a bit of a paradox.

My guess is that the ideas behind the anti-abortion laws are that it's favoring the bodily autonomy of the child over the mother. Well, that, and that abortion snuffs out a life before it even gets the chance to live.

I certainly don't agree with abortion, but I understand the individual circumstances that would lead to that decision are different from person to person. It's not my choice to make, so it really shouldn't be the law's choice, either.

A fertilized egg is not a baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had several arguments about abortion elsewhere, and I'll spare everyone the details.  The conclusion I've come to is that the modern "pro-life" movement needs the following:

1. A complete disregard for the mother's life
2. The conviction that life begins at conception
3. An immediate solution
4. They actually don't care about the life of the fetus

1 and 4 are linked by the callous answers I received when I pointed out that abortions would be more dangerous, and would most likely cost the mother her life.  If they truly cared about the mother and fetus, this would be a nightmare scenario, as a dead mother means a dead fetus.  2 is based on misreading the Bible.  3 is why stuff like better sex ed, readily available contraceptives, and generally making economic conditions better doesn't seem attractive.  There's also the matter of "punishing" the father, which also seems to be completely forgotten.

tl;dr - I have yet to find a pro-life argument that's mentally honest.

Meanwhile, the bounty site was kicked off GoDaddy, so that's some good news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, totally pro life when they activity worked to:

I would call it hypocrisy, but that would be too nice for them. They know what they are doing, and the people who vote for them are all too willing to accept these outcome if it gets them what they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, indigoasis said:

It can grow into one.

Not going to try to persuade or anything, but if we start operating in "can" in this conversation, then what of the gametes? Gametes can become babies, all you need is to fertilize them. Should all wasted gametes, including the millions men produce on a weekly basis and discard through urine if not released otherwise, be regarded as tragic losses of human lives?

-Just trying to set the barest minimum of a half-zygote not equalling a human life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Not going to try to persuade or anything, but if we start operating in "can" in this conversation, then what of the gametes? Gametes can become babies, all you need is to fertilize them. Should all wasted gametes, including the millions men produce on a weekly basis and discard through urine if not released otherwise, be regarded as tragic losses of human lives?

-Just trying to set the barest minimum of a half-zygote not equalling a human life.

Dude, those things are expandable, even when they're actually being used. Even when someone uses a condom or a contraceptive, you're technically costing someone their life before they're even being born.

 

It's not that I believe in this sort of stuff; it's just that this kind of argument rarely leads to anyone changing their mind about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Not going to try to persuade or anything, but if we start operating in "can" in this conversation, then what of the gametes? Gametes can become babies, all you need is to fertilize them. Should all wasted gametes, including the millions men produce on a weekly basis and discard through urine if not released otherwise, be regarded as tragic losses of human lives?

-Just trying to set the barest minimum of a half-zygote not equalling a human life.

I guess that's a good point, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. Gametes are going to be naturally produced by the body like any other cells, and released at some point through natural or voluntary methods. A fertilized egg has the ability to grow into a human being, whereas gametes don't (unless they're combined). Gametes can't grow into a living, breathing person on their own. 

Gametes are like all the other cells in your body, but they're just kinda chillin' until you do something with 'em. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are getting into semantics and being pedantic, then pretty much every time an ovum isn't fertilized with a sperm, it gets aborted. So abortions are happening all the time by a woman's own body.

Ultimately, this anti-abortion law was crafted in bad faith and is basing itself on an outright lie (doctors have already debunked the whole 'fetal heartbeat at six weeks'). That's reason enough to oppose it regardless of what your stance on the issue itself is, I'd think.

Edited by Acacia Sgt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...