The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

The rest are simply murder for convenience.

no Cecil Clayton was murder for convenience yet the Prolife(tm) camp was silent on that one

[aretood2]

She did specify eggs, not grown chickens..............

On the subject however.........

[videyoutube;gchS83wgvFM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gchS83wgvFM[/video]

I'm just taking it to it's logical conclusion. If eating unfertilized farmed eggs is equivalent to abortion (killing the unborn) then why isn't eating a hatched checken equivalent to eating a born human?

[Ian-S]

Because the chicken isn't self aware?
I'm not wanting to get into this discussion, but that's usually the excuse I hear from meat/egg eating ant-abortion lot.

[Annoyed]

Religious or not...it sounds like a dystopian puritanical state that he's advocating.

No, I'm just advocating a state where people take responsibility for their own actions, rather than expecting others to pick up the tab, as we have today. I have no problem with contraception, various methods are available to both sexes at reasonable costs but if it fails, the result is still that of the people who had the party. the bottom line is that if you can't afford to pay for the party, you have no business having it.

And no one here has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of why people who had nothing to do with the party should be expected to pay for it.

[SoulReaver]

No, I'm just advocating a state where people commoners take responsibility for their own actions

fixed

[Annoyed]

fixed

Havn't I said this before? I don't care what kind of government you have, the rich and powerful always get away with almost if not anything. You can't control them no matter what you do.

But there is no reason on earth to encourage everyone else to do the same. You're always going on about how unfair everything is. Well, it's damned unfair to the taxpayer who has to pay the bills for all these parties.

[SoulReaver]

But there is no reason on earth to encourage everyone else to do the same

sure there is in fact you just cited it:

the rich and powerful always get away with almost if not anything. You can't control them no matter what you do.

[Annoyed]

sure there is in fact you just cited it:

the rich and powerful always get away with almost if not anything. You can't control them no matter what you do.

So, you're saying that because the rich get away with it every one should?
You're forgetting one tiny detail. The rich use their own money to buy their way out of consequences*.
They aren't making the working stiffs (read: taxpayers) pay for it.

*This relates to a long time theory I've held. The longer someone is rich, the stupider they get. They don't have to worry about paying for the consequences, so they have little reason to avoid stupid mistakes.

[SoulReaver]

So, you're saying that because the rich get away with it every one should?

I'm saying only 1 thing there should be only 1 law

You're forgetting one tiny detail. The rich use their own money to buy their way out of consequences*

so bribery/corruption on top of it - not a detail

[Annoyed]

I'm saying only 1 thing there should be only 1 law

so bribery/corruption on top of it - not a detail

But as I have said, and you've agreed with, that happens regardless of government.

[SoulReaver]

But as I have said, and you've agreed with, that happens regardless of government.

good then as I have said & you'll disagree with, all bets are off

[thekillman]

So, you're saying that because the rich get away with it every one should?
You're forgetting one tiny detail. The rich use their own money to buy their way out of consequences*.
They aren't making the working stiffs (read: taxpayers) pay for it.

This is such a bizarre statement. You acknowledge that US politics is bought and paid for by the rich, which means they get a huge say over how money is spent. You also acknowledge that they weasel their way out of taxes and responsibility. In other words, not only do they pay few taxes, they also get a huge say over everyone else's taxes. Yet it's of no concern because they pay for it with their own money (that they got through nepotism, inheritance, buying off of patent rights, copyright, tax breaks and state aid)

*This relates to a long time theory I've held. The longer someone is rich, the stupider they get. They don't have to worry about paying for the consequences, so they have little reason to avoid stupid mistakes.

Then why not fight them? Why do you try to protect those who neither need nor deserve your protection?

[Annoyed]

This is such a bizarre statement. You acknowledge that US politics is bought and paid for by the rich, which means they get a huge say over how money is spent. You also acknowledge that they weasel their way out of taxes and responsibility. In other words, not only do they pay few taxes, they also get a huge say over everyone else's taxes. Yet it's of no concern because they pay for it with their own money (that they got through nepotism, inheritance, buying off of patent rights, copyright, tax breaks and state aid)

Then why not fight them? Why do you try to protect those who neither need nor deserve your protection?

I'm neither protecting them or advocating for them, I simply accept things that cannot be changed. There is no point fighting it because it's a fight you cannot win.

Ever hear a 1971 song by the British rock group The Who called "Won't Get Fooled Again"? The closing line in that song is very wise. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" I'm putting a link to that song below just in case you or some other reader has never heard it.

As I've said, it doesn't matter what form of govt. you have. In a socialist or communist govt., those high up in the party or with connections to those people are the equivalent of the rich because those positions or connections are the equivalent of money. In a Theocracy, the golden cage is owned by the upper levels of the church hierarchy. In our capitalist/financially competitive society, the coin is money, and the people who make the most money run the show.

The form of govt. doesn't matter. There is always and always will be people on the top and people on the bottom, and the people on the top enjoy privileges the peons never imagine. The only difference is the criteria used to select who is where.

[Gatefan1976]

Because it's a fight you cannot win. As I've said, it doesn't matter what form of govt. you have. In a socialist or communist govt., those high up in the party or with connections to those people are the equivalent of the rich because those positions or connections are the equivalent of money. In a Theocracy, the golden cage is owned by the upper levels of the church hierarchy. In our capitalist/financially competitive society, the coin is money, and the people who make the most money run the show.

The form of govt. doesn't matter. There is always and always will be people on the top and people on the bottom, and the people on the top enjoy privileges the peons never imagine. The only difference is the criteria used to select who is where.

You have a poor imagination, and just insulted the FF you hold so dear.
BUT, notice that when it comes to guns, you think you can win against the government.
Strange, huh?

[Annoyed]

You have a poor imagination, and just insulted the FF you hold so dear.
BUT, notice that when it comes to guns, you think you can win against the government.
Strange, huh?

No, I don't think there can ever be a successful second american revolution. And it's not the firearms/weapons which make the difference. But that was the intent of the FF.

The British didn't have access to satellite based surveillance technology, nor did it have access to all of the other methods the US govt. has of watching and controlling society today. That is the difference, not whose musket is bigger.