The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

So everyone else should be responsible for some' else's choice of opening their legs up??

What do you think most of the money spent on welfare pays for?

[SoulReaver]

So everyone else should be responsible for some' else's choice of opening their legs up??

What do you think most of the money spent on welfare pays for?

hey the other side's no slough either when it comes to spending

[Gatefan1976]

Which i understand, but its the strange double standard which i see wrong..

I dunno where the double standard is G-man.
Once life is self sustaining, people do not have the right to end that life.
The "grey area" which people often argue about is when that "standard" is met.

So everyone else should be responsible for some' else's choice of opening their legs up??

Have you ever noticed that both you and Annoyed -never- say the guy should keep his junk in his pants?

[aretood2]

ask the Prolifers

generally speaking I doubt anyone remembers choosing to be born
though you're right in a way it happens (to you)

incidentally does the bible explicitly forbid abortion?

A bit of a loaded question. What we call abortion today, well, that word could have either no meaning to people in ancient times or a different meaning all together. Causing a pregnant woman to lose her child is a punishable offense determined by the husband or the judge (Exodus 21:22). The better question is, would people in ancient times consider it murder? If so, the 10 commandments has that covered. From that, ancient commentators are almost unanimous between Christians and Jews on the issue. With a few exceptions or reservations (Such as the health of the mother), abortion is condemned.

Another issue here is believing "Sola Scriptura." Not even evangelicals follow it and they claim to do so. For example, their belief in Trinity is most certainly not Sola Scriptura. Expecting Jews to follow Sola Scriptura is laughable, since they believe in both a Written Torah and an Oral Torah. Under Jewish law, it's not murder but it is not permitted unless certain circumstances are met (Such as a danger to the mother's health/life). But even then, if there is a way to neutralize the birth's threat to the mother, then abortion cannot be carried out until that option is explored.

Within Judaism that's not a question that is up for debate, but in Christianity you could really debate to a point. But for Christians I would say this, if Jewish law forbids abortion unless it poses a threat to the mother's life, what makes you think that Christ's law would be any less?

[LtColCarter]

ask the Prolifers

generally speaking I doubt anyone remembers choosing to be born
though you're right in a way it happens (to you)

incidentally does the bible explicitly forbid abortion?

What about separation of church and state? People seem to be forgetting that more and more.

[aretood2]

What about separation of church and state? People seem to be forgetting that more and more.

That's beyond the point.

[Annoyed]

Have you ever noticed that both you and Annoyed -never- say the guy should keep his junk in his pants?

I have always said that both parties are responsible and that the male should keep his pants on just as much as the female.
But the unavoidable truth of our biology states that the woman does have more to risk and therefore should be more careful. If you don't like that basic fact, take it up with the front office. I just work here.

[Gatefan1976]

I have always said that both parties are responsible and that the male should keep his pants on just as much as the female.

Actually, no you don't.

But the unavoidable truth of our biology states that the woman does have more to risk and therefore should be more careful. If you don't like that basic fact, take it up with the front office. I just work here.

Yeah.............

[garhkal]

I dunno where the double standard is G-man.
Once life is self sustaining, people do not have the right to end that life.
The "grey area" which people often argue about is when that "standard" is met.

The double standard as i see it is that it seems ok to end a life in many cases when its just unwanted (abortion) but its NOT ok to end a life, when that person's crimes justify removing it...

Have you ever noticed that both you and Annoyed -never- say the guy should keep his junk in his pants?

When men have just as much rights in relation to whether a baby gets aborted or not then i will give them equal smacking in keeping it in their pants..

What about separation of church and state? People seem to be forgetting that more and more.

If you actually READ what Jefferson wrote to a newspaper, NOT in the constitution and what liberals keep screwing up, he said "the powers in charge should NOT make a Government established religion'. NOT that all religion needs to stay out of government...
And in many cases people toss that SoCS around, its NOT to do with the government establishing a religion, such as when the FFRA sue schools for allowing players to pray, or when someone sues a town's coucil building cause they just have a LIST of all churches/Mosques/Synagogues in town and contact info/address info for them... (as happened in one town here in Ohio last year)...

[Falcon Horus]

Judging by how many young adults these days are STILL living at home with mom into their late 20s/early 30s, that age bracket just went up!!

Because it's frakking' expensive to live on your own, so then it's better to safe money and stay home longer.

So everyone else should be responsible for some' else's choice of opening their legs up??

Always the women... Men can do no wrong.

Have you ever noticed that both you and Annoyed -never- say the guy should keep his junk in his pants?

You noticed?

I have always said that both parties are responsible and that the male should keep his pants on just as much as the female.
But the unavoidable truth of our biology states that the woman does have more to risk and therefore should be more careful. If you don't like that basic fact, take it up with the front office. I just work here.

Point made.

And Womble says I am a "but"-person... Annoyed can join the club.

[Annoyed]

I have always said that both parties are responsible and that the male should keep his pants on just as much as the female.
But the unavoidable truth of our biology states that the woman does have more to risk and therefore should be more careful. If you don't like that basic fact, take it up with the front office. I just work here.

Actually, no you don't.

Yeah.............

Always the women... Men can do no wrong.

You noticed?





Point made.

And Womble says I am a "but"-person... Annoyed can join the club.

These reactions to my statement illustrate another criticism I have of the left in general, that they think and act according to the way they wish the world was, as opposed to the way it really is. They want to apply fantasy solutions to real problems.

In this case, yes, I understand perfectly well the concept that it takes two to tango, and the male bears equal responsibility with the woman. And the left is happy to proceed under that ASSUMPTION.

But in real life, at the end of the day, Men and Women are different, at a very basic and fundamental level, no matter how fervently some folks wish they weren't. In the real world, they are different.

And because of that difference, in this case, women physically bear the children, they are more likely to have to deal with the aftermath of an unplanned pregnancy. Although it is despicable behavior, and I am by no means advocating it or approving of it, the male ultimately can cut and run. The woman can't. (and killing the innocent baby isn't an acceptable solution)

So it rests upon her shoulders to exercise greater care when it comes to activity that may result in pregnancy.

No amount of wishing, legislation or any damn thing else will change these facts. They are unalterable, except by the hand of our creator, be it evolution or a deity of some sort.

[Gatefan1976]

These reactions to my statement illustrate another criticism I have of the left in general, that they think and act according to the way they wish the world was, as opposed to the way it really is. They want to apply fantasy solutions to real problems.

What fantasy?
What problem?

In this case, yes, I understand perfectly well the concept that it takes two to tango, and the male bears equal responsibility with the woman. And the left is happy to proceed under that ASSUMPTION.

How is that an assumption?

But in real life, at the end of the day, Men and Women are different, at a very basic and fundamental level, no matter how fervently some folks wish they weren't. In the real world, they are different.

Physically, yes they are different, by a few percentage points of their totality.

And because of that difference, in this case, women physically bear the children, they are more likely to have to deal with the aftermath of an unplanned pregnancy. Although it is despicable behavior, and I am by no means advocating it or approving of it, the male ultimately can cut and run. The woman can't. (and killing the innocent baby isn't an acceptable solution)

It's not acceptable -to you-, the man, who can cut and run and suffer no physical and likely no psychological damage and leave the woman behind.
Yeah, tell me why you should have a vote in this issue again?

So it rests upon her shoulders to exercise greater care when it comes to activity that may result in pregnancy.

Because if she doesn't, she will have to live with the consequences and be given no recourse to prevent them, because a guy says so, it "offends their moral senses"

No amount of wishing, legislation or any damn thing else will change these facts. They are unalterable, except by the hand of our creator, be it evolution or a deity of some sort.

What facts?
Woman have babies? FACT
Women are biologically different by a few percentage points? FACT.

Everything else is your opinion, and yes, legislating works because if it did not, people would not be whining about women having the ultimate authority over their own bodies "because that's not acceptable to THEM"

[LtColCarter]

That's beyond the point.

Hardly...

[LtColCarter]

50 Dead, 53 Injured In Orlando Gay Club Terrorist Attack

Wow...I woke up to this event in my Facebook newsfeed this morning. I was disgusted at the replies to local news outlet postings about the event. There was only one comment saying that this is a punishment from God. Others were calling for the death of Muslims and blaming the attack on President Obama.

[Falcon Horus]

It's officially the deadliest mass shooting by one shooter, leaving Sandy Hook (27) and Virginia Tech (32) behind.

Also, as I read on my twitter feed: this was the 173rd mass shooting (= more than four people killed) in the US since the start of 2016, and today is only the 164th day of the year.