• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

gtpeach said:
You all know that Donald Trump tweet about how you should go to jail or have your citizenship stripped if you burn the flag? I have someone agreeing with him on that issue on my FB page right now...
Click to expand...

I'll see your citizenship stripped bid and call with several sharing "murdering a cop = mandatory death sentence".

Sheesh!:r:
 
Gedunker said:
I'll see your citizenship stripped bid and call with several sharing "murdering a cop = mandatory death sentence".

Sheesh!:r:
Click to expand...

I do think that it should be at least classified as a hate crime if you purposely cause harm to a cop.




I also think that if a person is burning a flag another person should have the right to punch them in the face.
 
michaelskis said:
I also think that if a person is burning a flag another person should have the right to punch them in the face.
Click to expand...

In the same vein, anybody who expresses their right under the first amendment in a way that offends me should be subject to a face punching. :r:


To paraphrase what somebody else said more eloquently than I can:
I'd rather see somebody burn the flag and wrap themselves in the Constitution than burn the Constitution and wrap themselves in the flag.
 
Yup

WSU MUP Student said:
In the same vein, anybody who expresses their right under the first amendment in a way that offends me should be subject to a face punching. :r:


To paraphrase what somebody else said more eloquently than I can:
I'd rather see somebody burn the flag and wrap themselves in the Constitution than burn the Constitution and wrap themselves in the flag.
Click to expand...

Post of the Month!!
 
WSU MUP Student said:
In the same vein, anybody who expresses their right under the first amendment in a way that offends me should be subject to a face punching. :r:


To paraphrase what somebody else said more eloquently than I can:
I'd rather see somebody burn the flag and wrap themselves in the Constitution than burn the Constitution and wrap themselves in the flag.
Click to expand...

Molly Ivins. Great political writer. I miss her terribly.

++

I posted this before, but I'll post it again. I asked my father how he felt about flag burning, since he had been in the Navy ('42-'46), mostly in combat. His answer was he thought they were childish, not particularly helpful, and he dismissed them. I loved my dad, but I didn't like him, as our personalities were not well aligned. But as I've gotten older, I realized he taught me a lot.

I think Trump is not terribly bright and he's showing it more and more.
 
michaelskis said:
I do think that it should be at least classified as a hate crime if you purposely cause harm to a cop.




I also think that if a person is burning a flag another person should have the right to punch them in the face.
Click to expand...

You mean the existing shooting an officer laws aren't enough?, but I know what you mean.

I hate flag burning, but I love my constitution more. I'd like to see someone burn a cross (I know, incredibly racist, but hear me out) in front of all the Westboro church idiots as they stand on flags and do other vile things. You protest by destroying a symbol of something I love and I'm more than happy to destroy a symbol of something you think you love.
 
Is there an epidemic of flag burning? It's a complete and I mean complete non-issue but it gets people so fired up and distracted from the real issues so politicians like to trot out varous punishments for it.

Whether you're for or against the death penalty I don't care but I have fundamental problems when one type of person is murdered and the prescribed punishment is different if a different type of person is murdered.
 
MD Planner said:
Is there an epidemic of flag burning?
Click to expand...

Between trying to avoid all the people offering to buy my vote and help me commit fraud and avoiding all the burning flags so I don't get my clothes singed, one can barely make it down the sidewalk these day!





Or at least that's what some people would have you believe.
 
I'm probably horribly unAmerican and I'm sure I will be flagged by the NSA now, but I really don't understand the outrage over flag burning or kneeling during the national anthem. If anything is done for the purpose of terrorizing or intimidating others, it's a problem. As an act of protest? I don't have an issue with it. I would never burn the flag, but that's more because the flag itself doesn't really have a lot of meaning for me. It is fabric that is mass-produced and can be purchased for a few bucks every time a patriotic holiday rolls around.

I love America and there's no where else I'd rather live for the record. I'm just not very sentimental, and I think that may be why I have such a disconnection with how important the flag is to a lot of people.
 
MD Planner said:
Is there an epidemic of flag burning? It's a complete and I mean complete non-issue but it gets people so fired up and distracted from the real issues so politicians like to trot out varous punishments for it.

Whether you're for or against the death penalty I don't care but I have fundamental problems when one type of person is murdered and the prescribed punishment is different if a different type of person is murdered.
Click to expand...

The flag burning issue is a distraction.

I've always been bothered by motivation-based sentencing under U.S. hate crime legislation. The circumstances/nature of the crime (how egregious, how gruesome/personal, history of criminal activity, premeditation) have always struck me as more reliable than creating a burden of proof circumstance that requires a prosecutor to make a psychological argument regarding motivation. That is why you see relatively few prosecutions under hate crime laws--the burden of proof is difficult to quantify. I think juries make their own judgments in assessing motivation and that it already informs the sentencing process anyway. That being said, there are times when those types of laws do become necessary (remember, the origin of hate crime laws in the U.S. starts post-Civil War to address rampant crime against minorities by the Ku Klux Klan--existing laws were not a sufficient deterrent as implemented).

I will also say, however, that I'm writing that statement from a position of privilege and, therefore, do not have the experience or perspective of someone that has been subject to institutional discrimination. I have never had reason to believe that I would be denied justice on the basis of a personal characteristic.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
In the same vein, anybody who expresses their right under the first amendment in a way that offends me should be subject to a face punching. :r:
Click to expand...

I am good with that. :D

gtpeach said:
I'm probably horribly unAmerican and I'm sure I will be flagged by the NSA now, but I really don't understand the outrage over flag burning or kneeling during the national anthem. If anything is done for the purpose of terrorizing or intimidating others, it's a problem. As an act of protest? I don't have an issue with it. I would never burn the flag, but that's more because the flag itself doesn't really have a lot of meaning for me. It is fabric that is mass-produced and can be purchased for a few bucks every time a patriotic holiday rolls around.

I love America and there's no where else I'd rather live for the record. I'm just not very sentimental, and I think that may be why I have such a disconnection with how important the flag is to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on kids wearing hats in school or church? What about some 16 year old telling you to F-off because they don't like the color of your shirt? What about someone taking up 2 parking spaces on black friday, driving 10 miles under the speed limit during rush hour with an open lane of traffic in front of them, a person saying inappropriate things about woman, or woman wearing inappropriate things out in public where there are a lot of children? What about a playboy model snapping a picture of an overweight elderly woman in the gym locker room and posing the picture with a disparaging comment on social media? What about burning the bible or an entire library of books in the middle of the street?

It is not the physical aspect of the flag as much as the symbolic aspect and what it represents. The flag represents everything that you love about the US. It represents the freedoms that we enjoy where with a realistic understanding that those freedoms are not universally accepted in other parts of the world. When someone disrespects the flag, they are not disrespecting a rectangle of fabric, they are disrespecting everything that you and I love about this nation.

I am of the mind that there should be minimum standards of civility, respect, and decorum in society. I say hello to people I see and make eye contact with, I give someone the benefit of the doubt and try understand another person's intentions and not just their actions. I also have an American Flag sticker on the back window of my truck, one on my wife's SUV, and I fly the flag at my house with a solar light under it to conform to US flag code.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
I am good with that. :D



What are your thoughts on kids wearing hats in school or church? What about some 16 year old telling you to F-off because they don't like the color of your shirt? What about someone taking up 2 parking spaces on black friday, driving 10 miles under the speed limit during rush hour with an open lane of traffic in front of them, a person saying inappropriate things about woman, or woman wearing inappropriate things out in public where there are a lot of children? What about a playboy model snapping a picture of an overweight elderly woman in the gym locker room and posing the picture with a disparaging comment on social media? What about burning the bible or an entire library of books in the middle of the street?
Click to expand...


Those aren't all equivalent. Some of them are symbols of respect (taking off hats in church or school - also doesn't bother me. Why? Because rarely are they ever told WHY they take their hats off, they're just told to do it out of respect). And some of those are actually directed at people in a way that is intended to harm or intimidate.
 
gtpeach said:
Those aren't all equivalent. Some of them are symbols of respect (taking off hats in church or school - also doesn't bother me. Why? Because rarely are they ever told WHY they take their hats off, they're just told to do it out of respect). And some of those are actually directed at people in a way that is intended to harm or intimidate.
Click to expand...

WHY is a philosophical question that can be applied to anything, but I think it is a good question. In the end I think that it comes down to your personal beliefs and your moral background. There is two different thresholds that happen, one where one is offended and where one is harmed physically. The second leaves actual tangible evidence that can be measured. The first one is a bit more complicated to measure and/or determine why.

No, not everything is equivalent. Nothing in life is equivalent but they can still fall into the same category and what one finds offensive will be different from person to person and culture to culture. I am sure that there are things in life that you would find offensive that I would not and I am sure that there are things that I would find offensive that you would not.

In terms of the Flag, I guess a comparison would be burning a cross.
 
michaelskis said:
In terms of the Flag, I guess a comparison would be burning a cross.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about a burning cross or Bible or something along those lines. The difference is that cross-burnings actually are intended to intimidate and threaten, which is offensive. It would also be different if we saw a terrorist group burning American flags, because again of what the intention is. Flag burnings by Americans are for a different purpose, so I guess it feels different to me. It's to demonstrate dissatisfaction with one's own country.

I really can't think of a similar example where someone within the church would burn Bibles for purposes of protesting against the policies of the church itself, so that ended up not getting me anywhere. I suppose it's possible, though. :)
 
gtpeach said:
I was thinking about a burning cross or Bible or something along those lines. The difference is that cross-burnings actually are intended to intimidate and threaten, which is offensive. It would also be different if we saw a terrorist group burning American flags, because again of what the intention is. Flag burnings by Americans are for a different purpose, so I guess it feels different to me. It's to demonstrate dissatisfaction with one's own country.

I really can't think of a similar example where someone within the church would burn Bibles for purposes of protesting against the policies of the church itself, so that ended up not getting me anywhere. I suppose it's possible, though. :)
Click to expand...

And even that has had various meanings throughout the years going back to medieval Scottish times as a sign of war. There are a few instances of it being used during the crusades to fight what some thought would be the oppression of the catholic faith, but those reports are sketchy at best.

What about the book burning in Nazi Germany. Granted the rolls were reversed, but today something like that would spark substantial public outcry. Granted the are just bound sheets of mass produced paper, but the symbolism behind it is more than the physical act.


On a side but related note, there is a teacher in NC who is on leave and will not have his contract renewed with the school because he stomped on the US flag in class as part of a discussion. (LINK) As much as I don't like the federal governments overstepping the consitution (and it looks like it will continue with Trump, so this is not a partisan comment), I think that the Flag is a symbol of the freedoms that we have, not of who is in charge.
 
michaelskis said:
What about the book burning in Nazi Germany. Granted the rolls were reversed, but today something like that would spark substantial public outcry. Granted the are just bound sheets of mass produced paper, but the symbolism behind it is more than the physical act.


On a side but related note, there is a teacher in NC who is on leave and will not have his contract renewed with the school because he stomped on the US flag in class as part of a discussion. (LINK) As much as I don't like the federal governments overstepping the consitution (and it looks like it will continue with Trump, so this is not a partisan comment), I think that the Flag is a symbol of the freedoms that we have, not of who is in charge.
Click to expand...


Again, I guess it all comes down to what's the intended purpose of the book burnings. It's not the actual burning of the books that would bother me, it would be if it was in an effort to censor or control or embarrass or something along those lines. If it's to make a public statement without specifically threatening anyone or their freedoms, then I don't think I'd really have much of a response to it. I really am trying to be objective about it, but I think that's just the way I'm wired.

The thing about symbols is that there's no definite right or wrong way to interpret what they mean. While the Flag is a symbol of freedom for you, that same thing is a symbol of oppression for those that feel their freedoms are not protected equally under the law. Part of it has to do with understanding whose perspective you're using when describing what something means.

I haven't gone to the link yet, but I don't know that I would be bothered by the flag stomping. Context is important. If he was using it to make a legitimate point, then maybe I'd be okay with it. If he was saying that's how he felt about the government in order to influence the kids, then I probably wouldn't be. Context makes a difference, though.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
The flag burning issue is a distraction.
Click to expand...

You are right, the burning of the flag is likely just a act to draw attention to whatever cause. I don't condone flag burning and I don't ever see a time which I would participate in burning a flag in protest but in 1989, SCOTUS ruled that it's a freedom of expression and is protected by the first amendment. At that time, I recall discussing it with my Grandfather who was a private in the US Army stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked by the Japanese Navy and spent the next few years fighting under the American Flag. His said "The Constitution that gives them the right to burn the flag in protest is the same constitution that gives me the right to call them a dumba$$. The difference is I don't exercise my right but they do."
 
I'd like to think I've earned the right in my lifetime to wrap myself in the flag, but the whole jingoism thing really doesn't suit me. I tend to view flag burning as a 'silly' thing for really angry people to do. It sends a 'message' and is therefore protected 'speech' under the Constitution. The courts have already ruled on this issue. I also don't happen to think the act is at this time a particularly effective communications stratagem. At one time it was quite jarring but has become somewhat passé having been done thousands of times since the 1960's. Almost background noise if you will. But yeah, even so I support folks right to this speech. It would be a mistake to make it a crime at this juncture and actually quite counter to the principals this country was founded on.
 
Ah...yeah....but.....

This whole "the court has already ruled on_________" is a thing of the past.....you do know this? They will revisit many many "things.":(
 
The One said:
This whole "the court has already ruled on_________" is a thing of the past.....you do know this? They will revisit many many "things.":(
Click to expand...

This is one of my biggest concerns with people dismissing the things Trump says as "just his opinion - he hasn't actually acted on anything, yet." But we'll see. Some of his decisions about his cabinet so far have been okay, but some of them are horrifying. I'm imagining the same thing will happen with the policies he tries to implement when he actually does take office.
 
gtpeach said:
This is one of my biggest concerns with people dismissing the things Trump says as "just his opinion - he hasn't actually acted on anything, yet." But we'll see. Some of his decisions about his cabinet so far have been okay, but some of them are horrifying. I'm imagining the same thing will happen with the policies he tries to implement when he actually does take office.
Click to expand...

I would love for a reversal of Roe V Wade.




There has been some people who have commented that not all those who have supported Trump may have been racist, but it shows how unimportant that issue is to them. The same could be said that not all who supported Hillary don't value life, but it shows how unimportant the issue of life is to them.


*I did not support either candidate.
 
michaelskis said:
I would love for a reversal of Roe V Wade.
Click to expand...

That's just it, that's one of what I consider 50/50 decisions. Half the country wants a change and the other half doesn't. Neither side is right or wrong, we just need to find the right middle ground, but no one seems to be willing to compromise on a 50/50 problem. Maybe it's not exactly 50/50, but there just isn't enough people to tip the decision one way or another and damn it, compromise is never the answer.

I'd love to see a new interpretation of "unimpinged" rights to bare arms so we can have some reasonable gun laws, but it ain't gonna happen.

Or how about changing that whole money is speech thing, but I put chalk that one up to political greed rather than a 50/50 problem.
 
Nope

dvdneal said:
That's just it, that's one of what I consider 50/50 decisions. Half the country wants a change and the other half doesn't. Neither side is right or wrong, we just need to find the right middle ground, but no one seems to be willing to compromise on a 50/50 problem. Maybe it's not exactly 50/50, but there just isn't enough people to tip the decision one way or another and damn it, compromise is never the answer.
Click to expand...

The loud mouth minority loves you for spreading the myth that this is a 50/50 issue:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
 
dvdneal said:
That's just it, that's one of what I consider 50/50 decisions. Half the country wants a change and the other half doesn't. Neither side is right or wrong, we just need to find the right middle ground, but no one seems to be willing to compromise on a 50/50 problem. Maybe it's not exactly 50/50, but there just isn't enough people to tip the decision one way or another and damn it, compromise is never the answer.

I'd love to see a new interpretation of "unimpinged" rights to bare arms so we can have some reasonable gun laws, but it ain't gonna happen.

Or how about changing that whole money is speech thing, but I put chalk that one up to political greed rather than a 50/50 problem.
Click to expand...

Life and death is not a 50/50 issue. One side is right and one side is wrong. One side believes in life the other side is ok with murder. Owning a gun is not the same because the act of owning a gun and carrying a gun does not guarantee the death of someone. An Abortion does. People who are pro-choice don't think about what choice an unborn child would choose in 20 years. Do any of you wish that your mother aborted you?

I think that most people would be ok with amending the gun thing to require background checks on the purchase of any firearm. It is simple, clean, and is already in place in many states.
 
michaelskis said:
I would love for a reversal of Roe V Wade.

There has been some people who have commented that not all those who have supported Trump may have been racist, but it shows how unimportant that issue is to them. The same could be said that not all who supported Hillary don't value life, but it shows how unimportant the issue of life is to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is fair. My value of life has to do with giving rights rather than removing--that the granting of rights is the most fundamentally pro-life position. My pro-life position is that overturning the case is not the best route to the desired result of reduced abortion. I feel, quite strongly, that Trump is interested in a broad rollback of fundamental rights in this country (I'm talking civil rights, speech rights, etc.) and has shown a disregard for life throughout his lifetime. I also don't run around accusing Trump voters of being racist.

I very much respect your opinion on Roe v Wade even if I don't agree with you. I do believe we share goals on the topic, and simply disagree on the means. I believe everyone has a goal of fewer abortions taking place--I don't know anybody that likes abortion. Studies show the best ways to do this are through readily available free contraception in combination with appropriate s3xual education (not abstinence only), and strong programmatic support following birth (paid leave, improved daycare assistance, etc.).

My worry isn't necessarily with Roe v. Wade being overturned. My concern is the type of judges that would be appointed that would result in the rapid overturning of Roe v. Wade. Think about that for a bit... you're talking about judges that have disregard for stare decisis even when staring down an issue that is hyper-political & hyper-controversial. That isn't necessarily bad (reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson), but that disregard would represent a shift toward an activist court. This is interesting to me because the current party in power has long lamented "activists" on the SCOTUS bench (because they define "activist" as a judge that goes against them regardless of Constitutional basis). The limited litmus test of Roe v. Wade, in an environment in which a single party controls that is myopically focused on 1-2 issues (abortion & guns in this case), is likely to mean those are the only issues given real consideration during confirmation rather than a complete examination of jurisprudence & the person's history as it might pertain to countless other topics likely to enter the courts that I would argue carry more importance to the long-term governance and society.

Given what I've seen in cabinet nominations, I absolutely DO NOT TRUST the President-Elect's judgment in identifying SCOTUS justices. I fear the appointment of justices that politicize the judiciary (more than it already has been), accept authoritarianism and the notion that safety & order trumps all, lack Constitutional understanding and fail to respect the intent of the Constitution to grant rights rather than remove (that is the theme of the entire Constitution). Trump is fundamentally authoritarian, and I firmly believe that notion, more than any other, conflicts with the basis for this country. There is no more anti-life position than authoritarianism.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I don't think that is fair. My value of life has to do with giving rights rather than removing--that the granting of rights is the most fundamentally pro-life position. My pro-life position is that overturning the case is not the best route to the desired result of reduced abortion. I feel, quite strongly, that Trump is interested in a broad rollback of fundamental rights in this country (I'm talking civil rights, speech rights, etc.) and has shown a disregard for life throughout his lifetime. I also don't run around accusing Trump voters of being racist.

I very much respect your opinion on Roe v Wade even if I don't agree with you. I do believe we share goals on the topic, and simply disagree on the means. I believe everyone has a goal of fewer abortions taking place--I don't know anybody that likes abortion. Studies show the best ways to do this are through readily available free contraception in combination with appropriate s3xual education (not abstinence only), and strong programmatic support following birth (paid leave, improved daycare assistance, etc.).

My worry isn't necessarily with Roe v. Wade being overturned. My concern is the type of judges that would be appointed that would result in the rapid overturning of Roe v. Wade. Think about that for a bit... you're talking about judges that have disregard for stare decisis even when staring down an issue that is hyper-political & hyper-controversial. That isn't necessarily bad (reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson), but that disregard would represent a shift toward an activist court. This is interesting to me because the current party in power has long lamented "activists" on the SCOTUS bench (because they define "activist" as a judge that goes against them regardless of Constitutional basis). The limited litmus test of Roe v. Wade, in an environment in which a single party controls that is myopically focused on 1-2 issues (abortion & guns in this case), is likely to mean those are the only issues given real consideration during confirmation rather than a complete examination of jurisprudence & the person's history as it might pertain to countless other topics likely to enter the courts that I would argue carry more importance to the long-term governance and society.

Given what I've seen in cabinet nominations, I absolutely DO NOT TRUST the President-Elect's judgment in identifying SCOTUS justices. I fear the appointment of justices that politicize the judiciary (more than it already has been), accept authoritarianism and the notion that safety & order trumps all, lack Constitutional understanding and fail to respect the intent of the Constitution to grant rights rather than remove (that is the theme of the entire Constitution). Trump is fundamentally authoritarian, and I firmly believe that notion, more than any other, conflicts with the basis for this country. There is no more anti-life position than authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I don't give a flying flip if you think it is fair or not because it is not an issue about fairness, it is an issue about right or wrong and life or death. While I respect you, I don't respect your view of Roe vs Wade because I don't respect the idea that one thinks it is ok to murder unborn children.

I also think it is ridiculous how people suddenly go into discussions about contraception as if that helps their point. Do you believe that abortion is a form of contraception or something. I guess if you are going to bring that into the mix, I could clarify that I am pro-choice until the point of conception... then I am 100% pro life because that is where life begins.

Under your concept of legalization, why don't we just legalize and regulate everything from drugs, to domestic abuse, to shootings? Afterall none of those result in the same level of massacre that abortion does in a given year. Whey not set up clinics where you can shoot people or where you can go beat the crap out of your significant other... but we will have paramedics on hand just in case. When to take premeditated action to end the life of another that is murder. It is as simple as that.

AND before someone gets on the 'rape and incest' bandwagon, that is a total load of crap when you look at the real statistics. Also don't give me the "well it's their body crap either... because if it was their body, they would be the one who dies.

Finally, one thing that we do agree on is a lack of trust in the next administration. And you are right that the pendulum could swing too far and result in a state of chaos, but to say that the murder of unborn children should stay legal because that means it won't cause other problems is the dumbest thing I have heard all day. I rather live in a society that is a bit edgy then one that thinks it is ok to murder unborn children.
 
Isn't the whole issue about defining the moment life begins and that's where everyone seems to get lost. What is a viable life. I figure someone smarter than me needs to figure that out.

And gun control is about murder. Far more people are murdered by idiots with guns than by abortion and yet we seem not to care about that enough to really do anything either. So society is saying killing a potential life is murder, but we don't want to stop the guy shooting 16 year old kids at the high school. Those are viable lives and if someone holds up a bible a yells thou shalt not kill, it goes for everything. It's not just that you or me personally aren't committing the murder with a gun, we're allowing it to happen. In the same manner, you and I aren't performing the murder in a abortion, but we're allowing it to happen. In the extreme view of limiting all abortions to stop murder we should limit all guns to do the same and you can't argue exemptions because then you would have to argue exemptions for abortion. You also can't argue protection because there are plenty of non lethal protection methods out there. To be honest, I don't care what the end result is, but everyone needs to stop arguing about it and begin to find a workable compromise and accept that. Extreme views just aren't the answer, unless it actually is. And of course gun control and abortion are completely separate issues, but the logic applied to the arguments fails.

Sorry if I'm pissing off anyone, just arguing for the sake of it. Pull a shot of whisky from the desk drawer and we'll all go back to abusing the person across the desk. :D
 
dvdneal said:
Isn't the whole issue about defining the moment life begins and that's where everyone seems to get lost. What is a viable life. I figure someone smarter than me needs to figure that out.

And gun control is about murder. Far more people are murdered by idiots with guns than by abortion and yet we seem not to care about that enough to really do anything either. So society is saying killing a potential life is murder, but we don't want to stop the guy shooting 16 year old kids at the high school. Those are viable lives and if someone holds up a bible a yells thou shalt not kill, it goes for everything. It's not just that you or me personally aren't committing the murder with a gun, we're allowing it to happen. In the same manner, you and I aren't performing the murder in a abortion, but we're allowing it to happen. In the extreme view of limiting all abortions to stop murder we should limit all guns to do the same and you can't argue exemptions because then you would have to argue exemptions for abortion. You also can't argue protection because there are plenty of non lethal protection methods out there. To be honest, I don't care what the end result is, but everyone needs to stop arguing about it and begin to find a workable compromise and accept that. Extreme views just aren't the answer, unless it actually is. And of course gun control and abortion are completely separate issues, but the logic applied to the arguments fails.

Sorry if I'm pissing off anyone, just arguing for the sake of it. Pull a shot of whisky from the desk drawer and we'll all go back to abusing the person across the desk. :D
Click to expand...

In 2013, 664,435 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2013 was 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 200 abortions per 1,000 live births. (LINK TO CDC)

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6 (LINK TO CDC)

I am all about background checks for the purchase of firearms, but to say that 33,736 deaths by fire arms is more than 664,435 murdered unborn children shows that you don't know what you are talking about. More so, not all of those 33,736 deaths were a deliberate premeditated murder. Many were accidental deaths caused by someone who was untrained or an idiot. Yes, all of those deaths are tragic. But all of the more than 1/2 a million slaughtered unborn children is premeditated murder. Think about that number for a moment.... 664,435... in one year. How many people are in your community? What about your country? What would be more than 1/2 the county that I live in. In the same year, less people died of Cancer. (Cancer.org Data)

The literal translation in the bible is "Thou shall not murder" and I believe in that 100%. I have weapons for personal protection of me and my family. I make sure the I am trained to handle those weapons with skill and care. They are locked and secured when they are not on me. I make sure that everyone in my house understands what these weapons are capable of and make sure that other than my wife, they do not have access to them. Given that there are over 300 million guns in the United States, of there were a problem with the majority of gun owners, there would be substantially more deaths than 33,736 per year.

In the end, ask you self if you are comfortable knowing that 664,435 unborn children were murdered in 2013, and even more were murdered each year for many years before that. 664,435 lives lost.

Finally, if scientists found a single celled amoeba on a foreign planet, they would declare that they found life. Why is there a double standard when it comes to conception? And before you say something about being a viable life, sure, it requires very specific conditions... Last I checked all life that has ever existed needed very specific conditions to be sustained.
 
Hink said:
Ben Carson. HUD Secretary.

Wow. Best people huh?
Click to expand...

He's not qualified to be Surgeon General even though he's a freaking DOCTOR (and by all accounts a good one), but somehow he's qualified to be HUD Secretary? That's insanity.
 
You know what though? If ANYONE can come into HUD with some sort of business sense and do away with some of the colossal waste that exists there I'm all for it. I firmly believe you could cut HUD's budget by 100 million and it wouldn't have to impact a single program in the slightest. The inefficiencies within HUD are staggering.
 
Hink said:
Ben Carson. HUD Secretary.

Wow. Best people huh?
Click to expand...

So this is what political cronyism looks like. You pick a guy who's on your side and just throw him where he wants to go. Even if he doesn't have enough experience and even if housing is not his specialty? I'll just hope for the best and hope he can cut some of the HUD red tape while maintaining some of the good work they do. I wonder what HUD employees feel about this?


In other worthless political news. We had an actual case of voter fraud in Kansas. Maybe not strictly fraud, but plain messed up voting. There was an election to dissolve a small town near me (not my county). In a town with only 9 registered voters the vote was 13-7 to keep the town. It turns out some of the volunteer help handed out the wrong ballot to a couple people. Can you guess the outrage and result? That's right, we'll just let it stand because it's no big deal.
 
AG74683 said:
He's not qualified to be Surgeon General even though he's a freaking DOCTOR (and by all accounts a good one), but somehow he's qualified to be HUD Secretary? That's insanity.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either. Yes, he was the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, has a degree in psychology from Yale and an MD from Michigan. No where in any of his training does it indicated he is in any way qualified to be anything but Surgeon General, definitely not HUD.

The only saving grace with any of this is that he grew up in a poor area of Detroit and had issues with gangs. Maybe he will realize how important our urban areas are and not do anything stupid like eliminating CDBG.
 
It is about time....

Pat McCrory has conceded to Democrat challenger Roy Cooper in the North Carolina gubernatorial race. In a YouTube message released just after 12 p.m. Monday, he said he believes the majority of North Carolina citizens have spoken and asked people to support Cooper as the 75th governor. (LINK)
 
michaelskis said:
Finally, if scientists found a single celled amoeba on a foreign planet, they would declare that they found life. Why is there a double standard when it comes to conception? And before you say something about being a viable life, sure, it requires very specific conditions... Last I checked all life that has ever existed needed very specific conditions to be sustained.
Click to expand...

Science. Because of science. Finding life, and finding viable independent life is different. Any scientist worth their salt understands this difference. You have to realize that specific conditions are very different for life if you are talking about an amoeba and a child. Like internal organs? Or a slew of other bodily functions that are necessary to have a functioning human baby. Science and religion have never mixed. Unfortunately we have people who want to make them mix. Separation of church and state. Constitution, etc. You know gun rights and stuff.

Also, I assume you support higher taxes to cover healthcare of early birthed babies for their entire life? And welfare for the mother's who will have a child and are unable to care for it? Or do those lives not matter?
 
Right to lilfe people lose me whenever they let you know they're for the death penalty. Obviously not all feel that way and I respect that opinion but when some folks start segregating who "lives or dies" I have a problem with the hypocrisy. And I don't want to hear the "innocent" vs. "heinous criminal scrumbag" argument. Life is life according to them. Well it is until it isn't apparently.
 
Hink said:
Science. Because of science. Finding life, and finding viable independent life is different. Any scientist worth their salt understands this difference. You have to realize that specific conditions are very different for life if you are talking about an amoeba and a child. Like internal organs? Or a slew of other bodily functions that are necessary to have a functioning human baby. Science and religion have never mixed. Unfortunately we have people who want to make them mix. Separation of church and state. Constitution, etc. You know gun rights and stuff.

Also, I assume you support higher taxes to cover healthcare of early birthed babies for their entire life? And welfare for the mother's who will have a child and are unable to care for it? Or do those lives not matter?
Click to expand...

That is a load of crap and you and I both know it. How do you define viable independent life? Last I checked you need very specific conditions to sustain life. The environmental factors need to be a particular way, you need food and hydration. A fish needs different conditions. What about babies that need assistance from medical devices after birth, are they not life? What about those who need a pacemaker, other electonics, or similar devices to sustain life? My dad needed to be on a respirator and a pump when he had to have heart surgery. Should he not have a life. I am on medications right now that without them, I would likely die. Because I can't be sustained without them, do I not have a life?

What about the bacteria that live in your gut. Science classifies that as life, why not an unborn child. Any scientist that will separate the two can kiss my A$$.

Furthermore, the many courts have already decided this. If a pregnant woman is shot and killed, the shooter can be convicted of double homicide. Are you saying it should apply in one situation and not the other?

Finally, while I don't believe in federal health care, I do think that there should be emergency safety nets for children, born or unborn and their pregnant mothers. If it resulted in the elimination of abortion, I would happily pay more taxes to assure that they get a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But answer one major question, do you have a problem knowing that over 600,000 unborn children are murdered every year? Think about that number... 600,000 lives. Will all of them have awesome lives, no. But at least give them the chance of life.
 
michaelskis said:
But answer one major question, do you have a problem knowing that over 600,000 unborn children are murdered every year? Think about that number... 600,000 lives. Will all of them have awesome lives, no. But at least give them the chance of life.
Click to expand...

Personally, I hate that anyone has to make such an impossible decision. I hate that we have a society that makes making that choice even harder and more unsafe. I hate that situations occur that force someone to have to choose that option. With that said your 600,000 lives number insinuates life. We can argue all day, but in the end, the definition of "life" is pretty well established with those who use facts and science. Ask a medical profession, and 98% will tell you the same thing. I know many physicians who are very religious, and yet on this point, they agree. I do not know one OBGYN who thinks that there is any viable life at 8 weeks. Or less than 20 weeks for that matter. Science has made keeping a 21 week old baby alive possible. That isn't viable independent life. That is a medical miracle. That baby wouldn't have survived without machines and amazingly talented physicians.

I am glad that we can do this. I am glad that science has gotten so good that we can engineer life. Stem cells are awesome and will someday save lives. That is science being amazing. I fully believe we will have a way to create people someday, but I separate viable independent life from stem cells or other "life" that isn't viable. I do that because without medical or biological in the case of an 8 week old, support for many months, there is no viable human life. I don't think that this means that I support murder. I certainly don't think it means we should change a law that was adopted and has been upheld for the last 50 years.

I believe that I am a man who shouldn't make impossible choices for women. I believe that women should be empowered to make choices for their body, their life, and their future, without me telling them how to live their life.
 
Hink said:
I believe that I am a man who shouldn't make impossible choices for women. I believe that women should be empowered to make choices for their body, their life, and their future, without me telling them how to live their life.
Click to expand...

Under than thinking, I don't think that people who don't own guns should have the ability to regulate guns.

As for their body, their life... if it was their body, they would be the one dieing... not the unborn child.
 
michaelskis said:
Under than thinking, I don't think that people who don't own guns should have the ability to regulate guns.

As for their body, their life... if it was their body, they would be the one dieing... not the unborn child.
Click to expand...

And I thought responding wasn't going to go no where... :r:


Alright, moving on.
 
gtpeach said:
Not that I would ever expect this to happen, but if it did, what do you think would be the public reaction?

Horrified outcries because democracy was ripped out of the hands of the people? Or celebration that someone besides the two most unliked candidates to ever run for office gets to be president?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...87114c48&wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1#comments
Click to expand...

I am going to say it again, we are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

Having said that, I can see why people are ticked off about the electoral college. This is the 5th time in history that the person who won the popular vote did not become president. Other than Al Gore in 2000, all the others were in the 1800's.

I am not a fan of the current structure of the electoral college and I would be all for changing the format to each congressional district elects a vote and the popular vote for each state gets the other two. However I also feel that we need to do away with all gerrymandered districts and have the boundaries conform with municipal, county, state, or even neighborhood boundaries and try to get it so each one as as close to the 711,000 citizens as possible. This way every district has a real legitimate voice.

Growing up in rural part of Michigan, we realized many many years ago that our vote for president did not matter. Whatever way Detroit voted is the way the state went, so I know some people who never voted for a federal election because they felt it didn't actually matter. It the same in New York. In some states, it is the opposite.

Until we can perfect the ever vote gets counts, I think that we should stay with some type of electoral college.
 
michaelskis said:
Whatever way Detroit voted is the way the state went, so I know some people who never voted for a federal election because they felt it didn't actually matter. .
Click to expand...

It didnt work that way this year! Detroit, Flint and Kalamazoo were practically the only places that didnt vote for Drumpf.
 
michaelskis said:
I am going to say it again, we are not a democracy. We have never been a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying we were a democracy. Just wondering what the public response would be if the electoral college actually didn't vote for their pledged candidate. Celebration? Or outrage? :)
 
Back
Top