Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

A red state? In the northeast corner of the country? You have to be smoking something. They're a deep blue state.

But what the hell does that have to do with this topic?

yeah smoking wikiweed
Wiki says, current governor's GOP
you says?

[Annoyed]

Current Gov. may be a Republican, but that particular R may a RINO; it's common in deep blue states such as Mass. & NY. We had one too, George Pataki, who was registered and ran as a Republican, but in reality was so far to the left that in any other state he would be considered a Dem.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Massachusetts

They've voted for the Democrat presidential candidate every year since 1988, and overall the state is quite liberal, as is NY.

[SGalisa]

Not BS. garhkal is correct. Most of my in-laws will fiercely defend that they *ARE* Americans first. Any ethnicity comes thru their ancestry -- That is all.

My mother-in-law swore up and down and all other directions in between that she was an AMERICAN -- 100% American, and "Texan" to be exact. Born and raised in Texas. Her great grandparents ancestry came from Germany and some other European countries, but she was TEXAN first, and don't anyone *ever* forget that..!

You kinda just contradicted yourself there...

She married a New Yorker from Brooklyn. So, most of the whole family on that side that was born and raised in that neck of the region, were Brooklynites first.. the others were Long Islanders. Grandpa came over from Denmark (thus, was Danish), but the rest of the family were Americans ... and don't ever argue against it -- (generic) you won't win the argument.

And you did it again.

Me? I was raised from my parents to say that I am basically Indo-European, part Native American, and a bunch of other mixtures scattered into the genes as well. I'm American, because I was born here, but my family history is a more of a mutt type of variety.

And you did it again here.
. . .
And again...

. . .

aretood2, Your logic is illogical.
From at least the 1930's to 1990's time era, Texans ARE Americans, regardless of what many Mexicans think of the land territory still belonging to them. Not a contradiction. Mom-in-law was much happier to have the name Texas to her heritage, than her German stigma with Hitler attached to that country's heritage roots. Oh, and mom's half-sister was half-Mexican, as her dad was a wealthy pharmacist in Mexico, tho both girls grew up in Texas of the USA.

Brooklynites are also New Yorkers, who are also Americans.. same with all the other 50 USA states. Some Americans long to see their ancestral lands and heritage. I have no desire to visit Europe, because it is too unstable and unpredictable. My dad was more adventurous. He loved living on the ocean sea (in a big, stable Naval ship), and visiting England and Europe back in the years when he did do that (which he did during WWII).

Not me. I'm more stubborn. My family would love to see the sights of the entire world. Maybe if I had more money of friends/family willing to take me to various places, I might feel more adventurous in going out more. I like being a hermit. Unfortunately, hermits occasionally get displaced from their *snuggle* zones. So, I have to make the best with what location I've been given or sent off to.

Maybe I'm not as territorial as some other folks, so whatever chunk of this earth resides under my feet, all of it is merely temporary. I know what it's like to move every few years because of job situations and financial motivators. "There's no place like home" -- so what really is "home"..? Different branch of the same subject, so discussing this by going in circles is pointless, IMO.

(Generic) You can believe whatever you want (because you will anyway, regardless of what I say), so this subject of moving around on the earth is silly, IMO. Would I feel differently if I was born in Antarctica and lived there most of my life? Probably not. If I was raised there with the same ideals as I have from my real past, I might only be partial the penguins than the other wildlife in this area of the world. So, I do NOT see any contradictions with what I said in contrast to your POV from what I said.

Yet you felt the need not only to say this but to remember what your parents said. And they also felt the need to remind you what your heritage is.

They said whatever they said, BECAUSE that is how they were raised. Something about passing on family history verbally, just in case the family photo albums and papers got destroyed or damaged over the years. My siblings and I never really grasped all of the details sitting in mom's memory trunk in the corner of her room, until after daddy passed away and mom moved into her final retirement home.

aretood2, your comment seems to convey some other strangely *evil* and nefarious underling story beneath that never even entered my brain, even after you commented your own POV of what I wrote.

If you were American first, regions would not matter.

That Depends on one's living situation. I lived in Detroit, Michigan, and we moved just months prior to the 1960's riots breaking out in full force. Enjoy the excitement if you so desire -- that's part of your personality's decision to enjoy or not.
My own idea of an ideal living location is called "safety first, comfort next" and then hopefully all else *should* peacefully move into place.

One of my childhood *dream* homes was straight out of an architectural magazine. Back in the years when it was created, it was one of the most beautiful, peaceful settings in the greater northeast USA. Found out the house was riddled with water-related problems and recently got an 11 million dollar restoration and renovation. It was valued at 2 million when it was given over to a Pennsylvania conservatory group, but had to undergo major repairs that go wayyyyyy beyond my personal budget. I liked the design of the home on some levels, but it lacked a practical roof situation, as most of it is flat and subject to snow/ice/water weight.

Would I like a similar house in some other USA location? Maybe not. "Safety first with comfort next" would always be my priority wherever that place may be, but there aren't many places on this planet that make that ideal world within my mind, a genuine reality. At least not at this time era of our earthly existence.

Besides, any place I move to is only going to be temporary, as my body is (*retirement* aging) getting ready to depart for that *other* life in the eternal realms of wonder.. So, no, I'm not particularly attached to a specific spot on this planet called "earth". Maybe when (generic) you personally reach the point where your family cares less about inheriting things you've saved for their future, and you're torn between what to keep that has meaningful memories for you more than others in your family's list of relatives (including in-laws), then maybe you'll understand why I just said all that I just wrote. Otherwise, none of this will ever make sense.

Just a quick question for ya'll...why do we have Irish Heritage month here in the US? Or celebrate St. Patrick's day (Last I checked, half the things people do have no relation whatsoever with the Catholic Church's observance of it...which is mostly local to Ireland and not worldwide?

Because (IMHO) some people love to have any excuse just to party (and party hardy, if they are able to do so), so they make up some special date and apply it to something that would normally be meaningless any other time of the year or in some other place on this earth (where people don't even know of such popular "dates"), and thus the date suddenly becomes a famous hot-spot for popularity.

aretood2, I know you addressed this to everyone here, but if I were to include myself -- you picked the wrong celebration example, as I am also part Irish, but lost that love of the green Irish everything the day I ended up walking around looking like the jolly green Giant's green snow-baby, (because it was freezing COLD outside and there was snow on the ground), on a Sunday morning to impress the Catholic priest at Church, when I wanted to dress up in orange everything to match the warm sunrise sun-- well, that's a memory I won't ever forget. In my mind, I thought the priest would be happy that I'd be celebrating God's creation of nature, than match some political rift rooted to opposite colors that existed between warring religious persons. My reaction comment then and still now is "Good grief!" ...people need to put what is worth of eternal values more than those items that are merely temporal.

[SGalisa]

it's a conservative state right? fits with the neocon agenda (restricting 1st amendment)...

A red state? In the northeast corner of the country? You have to be smoking something. They're a deep blue state....

New York a RED state?? I agree with Annoyed on this one! ..ROTFLMBO!!!!
(Dems rule most of NY)
Grant it, NYC is worse than Long Island with "upstate" New York being the lesser of the blues. More green upstate in nature than across the Hudson River... However, upstate NY is poorer than the faster paced city zones of NYC and Long Island's crazy parking lot for a drive.

NJ just turned more blue, too, as the last RED county lost its political pull from the rest of the state voting BLUE (democrat) by kicking out our long standing Republican congressman, Scott Garrett. Probably for the best that he got voted out, as that may have spared him from getting trapped in the crossfires of the shooting down at the Republican baseball practice last week.

And sadly, Pennsylvania is a mixture of both blue/red political worlds in various parts, so it's only a matter of time before Pennsy turns all blue, too..

[Annoyed]

New York a RED state?? I agree with Annoyed on this one! ..ROTFLMBO!!!!
(Dems rule most of NY)
Grant it, NYC is worse than Long Island with "upstate" New York being the lesser of the blues. More green upstate in nature than across the Hudson River... However, upstate NY is poorer than the faster paced city zones of NYC and Long Island's crazy parking lot for a drive.

NJ just turned more blue, too, as the last RED county lost its political pull from the rest of the state voting BLUE (democrat) by kicking out our long standing Republican congressman, Scott Garrett. Probably for the best that he got voted out, as that may have spared him from getting trapped in the crossfires of the shooting down at the Republican baseball practice last week.

And sadly, Pennsylvania is a mixture of both blue/red political worlds in various parts, so it's only a matter of time before Pennsy turns all blue, too..

Actually, we were discussing Massachusetts being a blue state despite a R governor, and I was comparing that to George Pataki (R) holding the governor's mansion in NY for 10 years. Pataki was a Democrat in Republican's clothing, nothing more.
Mass. probably has a similar situation.

As far as PA goes, I'll bet the blue stain will start at the northeast corner of the state, near NYC and radiate outward like a cancer spreading.

[mad_gater]

Actually, we were discussing Massachusetts being a blue state despite a R governor, and I was comparing that to George Pataki (R) holding the governor's mansion in NY for 10 years. Pataki was a Democrat in Republican's clothing, nothing more.
Mass. probably has a similar situation.

As far as PA goes, I'll bet the blue stain will start at the northeast corner of the state, near NYC and radiate outward like a cancer spreading.

as far as PA goes I think the left-wing cancer has already metastasized...that particular cancer tends to do so quite rapidly unfortunately

[SGalisa]

As far as PA goes, I'll bet the blue stain will start at the northeast corner of the state, near NYC and radiate outward like a cancer spreading.

Actually, regarding Pennsy, I think it was the southeast corner, because that is where Philly is. Northeast is where the Delaware Water Gap basically begins (to flow southbound) and is mostly rural like the whole tri-state NY,NJ,PA corner there. Lots of Republicans in that area, or there used to be, anyway.

as far as PA goes I think the left-wing cancer has already metastasized...that particular cancer tends to do so quite rapidly unfortunately

Yeah, sadly. I saw a mixture of purple (scattered portions of red and varying blue hues) in the middle of the state's 2016 election results. Pittsburgh (PA) is probably all Democratic blue, but if yes, it's been that way longer than the middle of the state turned purple.


I like visiting Pennsy (= sometimes), but especially would love to see the Crystal Caves and Frank Lloyd Wright's exquisite Fallingwater property.. just to experience the serene scenic views.
btw, that has Nothing to do with politics -- at all. However, the way this nation (USA) was heading for the last 8 + years, I'm not sure how long those and other beautiful locations will be worth visiting in the future, if the wrong types of people end up controlling those areas. Not even the State forest areas in northeastern Pennsy were safe to drive thru last year (or whenever that incident happened), when that crazy "survivalist / murderer" was hiding out up there and plucking off / shooting the state police.

[Gatefan1976]

aretood2, Your logic is illogical.
From at least the 1930's to 1990's time era, Texans ARE Americans, regardless of what many Mexicans think of the land territory still belonging to them. Not a contradiction. Mom-in-law was much happier to have the name Texas to her heritage, than her German stigma with Hitler attached to that country's heritage roots. Oh, and mom's half-sister was half-Mexican, as her dad was a wealthy pharmacist in Mexico, tho both girls grew up in Texas of the USA.

Brooklynites are also New Yorkers, who are also Americans.. same with all the other 50 USA states. Some Americans long to see their ancestral lands and heritage. I have no desire to visit Europe, because it is too unstable and unpredictable. My dad was more adventurous. He loved living on the ocean sea (in a big, stable Naval ship), and visiting England and Europe back in the years when he did do that (which he did during WWII).

You utterly, totally, and I would guess wilfully missed Tood's point.
I'm not surprised.

Not me. I'm more stubborn. My family would love to see the sights of the entire world. Maybe if I had more money of friends/family willing to take me to various places, I might feel more adventurous in going out more. I like being a hermit. Unfortunately, hermits occasionally get displaced from their *snuggle* zones. So, I have to make the best with what location I've been given or sent off to.

Yeah..........

Maybe I'm not as territorial as some other folks, so whatever chunk of this earth resides under my feet, all of it is merely temporary. I know what it's like to move every few years because of job situations and financial motivators. "There's no place like home" -- so what really is "home"..? Different branch of the same subject, so discussing this by going in circles is pointless, IMO.

The discussion is relevant, your comment is not.

(Generic) You can believe whatever you want (because you will anyway, regardless of what I say), so this subject of moving around on the earth is silly, IMO. Would I feel differently if I was born in Antarctica and lived there most of my life? Probably not. If I was raised there with the same ideals as I have from my real past, I might only be partial the penguins than the other wildlife in this area of the world. So, I do NOT see any contradictions with what I said in contrast to your POV from what I said.

Yes. you would feel differently, different cultures develop different standards of "normal" you would NOT be raised with the same ideals, therefore, you would be a different person. Imagine your life without "god", not in the abstract concept of a "greater power", but not going to scripture, or church as a child.

They said whatever they said, BECAUSE that is how they were raised.

I rest my case with your own words.

[Falcon Horus]

This one is a real fence sitter for me.
While the young woman in question is despicable, manipulative and a general all-around lousy human being, I can't justify criminal charges. Really, convincing someone to kill themselves over the phone? That's just as absurd as an accusation of bullying over social networks.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...616-story.html

Involuntary manslaughter -- exactly what she should have gotten.

She was on the phone with him the moment he was suffocating himself. He stepped out of the car, and she told him to get back in. She could have stopped him right there -- he was attempting and she could have stopped him instead, but she didn't. She could have called for help, but she didn't.

She deserves this punishment, but at the same time she also deserves mental help. Jailtime is probably a given (20 years might be unlikely) but they should at least get her into appropriate treatment otherwise the next suicide might be hers. And who are we going to blame then?

And if you must know, we've had similar cases where the bullies have been convicted. Teenagers bullying another teen who committed suicide by jumping off a highway bridge, for example.

When death is the only way to stop the pain, you don't tell them to do it when they announce it. You do everything in your ****ing power to help them anyway and not offer them (humane) ways to off themselves.

and then after you come out of those pubs you're green for a different reason

Green all the way.

[Annoyed]

Involuntary manslaughter -- exactly what she should have gotten.

She was on the phone with him the moment he was suffocating himself. He stepped out of the car, and she told him to get back in. She could have stopped him right there -- he was attempting and she could have stopped him instead, but she didn't. She could have called for help, but she didn't.

She deserves this punishment, but at the same time she also deserves mental help. Jailtime is probably a given (20 years might be unlikely) but they should at least get her into appropriate treatment otherwise the next suicide might be hers. And who are we going to blame then?

And if you must know, we've had similar cases where the bullies have been convicted. Teenagers bullying another teen who committed suicide by jumping off a highway bridge, for example.

When death is the only way to stop the pain, you don't tell them to do it when they announce it. You do everything in your ****ing power to help them anyway and not offer them (humane) ways to off themselves.

That's why this is such a fence sitter for me.

From a moral and ethical standpoint, I agree, she deserves to spend the rest of her life behind bars, and none of the psychobabble BS either, in the clink and done.

But I can't buy into grounds for legal action for the simple reason that she cannot have possibly taken any physical action to cause his death as she was not physically present, merely communicating with him. If you and I disagree over some issue, and I tell you to go take a long walk off a short pier, is it my fault if you do so? Of course not. I'm thousands of miles away and cannot possibly injure you.

If this precedent is established, how long before someone breaks up with someone, and the ditched party goes off the deep end and kills their self, and the ditcher finds him/herself charged with a crime? Suppose you and I are dating, you find someone that rings your bell more than I do, and you dump me. Suppose I go all emo and suicide as a result. Should you be charged with murder?

If you're going to be charged with murder/etc.. I think its a good idea if you actually killed someone.

[pookey]

She told him to get back in the car, she did nothing to stop him, she knew what was happening, she is a horrible excuse for a human, as far as i can tell, your version of what could take place is based on what may happen, what she was doing was done in real time, she interacted with him and did nothing to prevent him from continuing

[Annoyed]

She told him to get back in the car, she did nothing to stop him, she knew what was happening, she is a horrible excuse for a human, as far as i can tell, your version of what could take place is based on what may happen, what she was doing was done in real time, she interacted with him and did nothing to prevent him from continuing

But she wasn't physically present, and did not take any physical action to kill him. He did that himself. Scumbag low-life, who doesn't deserve to live? Absolutely.

Criminal charges? I can't see that; it's impossible to kill someone via telephone or any other communication technology known today.

[SoulReaver]

But she wasn't physically present, and did not take any physical action to kill him. He did that himself.

yeah but maybe she used mind compulsion on him

[jelgate]

I told you wouldn't understand. It's about taking advantage of a person who is sick

[Annoyed]

yeah but maybe she used mind compulsion on him

I realize these are science fiction based message boards, but we are dealing with reality here. We poor humans don't have mental powers of that sort, at least not that we are able to harness at this point in our evolution/development.