Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

I'd call it a problem but it doesn't fit the term of emergency in the same way a hurricane is a national emergency. I Don't see the lives in danger

How many people have been killed by illegal alien criminal elements? Granted, citizens can kill each other just as well, but if those illegals had not been in the country to begin with, their victims would still be alive.

[Annoyed]

Seriously, explain to me the logic behind an emergency lasting for over 30 years?

A 30 years emergency? Yes?

A problem we haven't solved in 30+ years is an emergency, yes.

[aretood2]

Why is it that the concept of behaving responsibly is completely outside your universe? If you can't afford to have and raise kids, don't engage in the activity that creates them. It's really that simple. That way, you don't have to kill them, they won't " starve to death and wallow in misery" or anything else.

And yes, my pocketbook has its interest too. Why should I have to pay for someone else's screw up?

So punishing children for the mistakes of others is about personal responsibility?

How many people have been killed by illegal alien criminal elements? Granted, citizens can kill each other just as well, but if those illegals had not been in the country to begin with, their victims would still be alive.

Not as many as you think. Most crime is committed by citizens, by a large margin. A really large margin.

[Gatefan1976]

Gives tood bacon.

[Annoyed]

So punishing children for the mistakes of others is about personal responsibility?



Not as many as you think. Most crime is committed by citizens, by a large margin. A really large margin.

1:
How is someone keeping their pants on if they can't afford children punishing children?

You're not this dense, you just don't want to accept that people have a choice to have sex or not to have sex. Again, why is the responsible choice invisible to you?

2: Doesn't change the fact that if the illegal who kills someone hadn't been allowed to enter the country in the first place, that person wouldn't have been killed.

[aretood2]

1:
How is someone keeping their pants on if they can't afford children punishing children?

You're not this dense, you just don't want to accept that people have a choice to have sex or not to have sex. Again, why is the responsible choice invisible to you?

You are against public education, against programs aimed at helping at risk children, and against programs helping kids get a post secondary education and against family programs that help feed kids. I am talking about the kids, not the parents. Your brand of teaching "personal responsibility" involves removing these programs from these kids condemning them to miserable life. And you are conveniently ignoring that side of issue. Thus, you are punishing innocent kids who never asked to be born to teenage parents or parents out of wedlock etc... to a life of waller. In essence, you are asking these children to take responsibility for the actions of their parents and that makes no sense. And it takes a sick minded individual to even attempt to justify that.

I willing to bet that you just never considered that side of the issue and find yourself in a position of either digging in your heals or admitting that you are wrong. Of course, you are incapable of admitting being wrong so the only option is to dig in your heals and demand the suffering of kids just because their parents made a bad choice.

These are the cold hard facts. As a society, we need to have more children, our population needs to sustain itself. You have no kids, never intended to have kids. You don't want to pay for kids or for said kids' future. You want to limit immigration if not entirely reduce it thus preventing young working age immigrants from coming in. What use are you to the propagation of our society then? If anything you'd be a societal burden if you had it your way. A mouth to feed that produces nothing to ensure our future.

These are the emotional/moral facts. You want to punish the sons for the sins of the father in the name of what? A few tax dollars out of your pocket book? A juvenile (infantil is more appropo) sense of "I didn't have it so no one can have it either"?

The kids born as a result of bad choices are kids, they are alive. They are living individuals divorced from the moral implications of any one else's actions. There is no sound logical argument for preventing any aid or support for them, only juvenile and self serving societal burdensome arguments.

2: Doesn't change the fact that if the illegal who kills someone hadn't been allowed to enter the country in the first place, that person wouldn't have been killed.

I find that argument unconvincing and purely emotional.

[Chaka-Z0]

His argument relies on logic extremism, if you remove a person from the equation entirely the possibility of crime is nullified. Obviously.

The irony and hypocrisy shows when he denounces killings which would never occur should the weapons be restricted.

[Annoyed]

You are against public education, against programs aimed at helping at risk children, and against programs helping kids get a post secondary education and against family programs that help feed kids. I am talking about the kids, not the parents. Your brand of teaching "personal responsibility" involves removing these programs from these kids condemning them to miserable life. And you are conveniently ignoring that side of issue. Thus, you are punishing innocent kids who never asked to be born to teenage parents or parents out of wedlock etc... to a life of waller. In essence, you are asking these children to take responsibility for the actions of their parents and that makes no sense. And it takes a sick minded individual to even attempt to justify that.

I willing to bet that you just never considered that side of the issue and find yourself in a position of either digging in your heals or admitting that you are wrong. Of course, you are incapable of admitting being wrong so the only option is to dig in your heals and demand the suffering of kids just because their parents made a bad choice.

These are the cold hard facts. As a society, we need to have more children, our population needs to sustain itself. You have no kids, never intended to have kids. You don't want to pay for kids or for said kids' future. You want to limit immigration if not entirely reduce it thus preventing young working age immigrants from coming in. What use are you to the propagation of our society then? If anything you'd be a societal burden if you had it your way. A mouth to feed that produces nothing to ensure our future.

These are the emotional/moral facts. You want to punish the sons for the sins of the father in the name of what? A few tax dollars out of your pocket book? A juvenile (infantil is more appropo) sense of "I didn't have it so no one can have it either"?

The kids born as a result of bad choices are kids, they are alive. They are living individuals divorced from the moral implications of any one else's actions. There is no sound logical argument for preventing any aid or support for them, only juvenile and self serving societal burdensome arguments.

I have no problem with K-12 public education as a concept or something that we should be doing. My issues with that are in regards to its execution; it is far too expensive and is all too often used as political indoctrination rather than actually education. But that's another discussion.

Indoctrination is also rampant in secondary education. But most people look at the cost of secondary education, and I've stated my suggestion for that. Take govt. money out of it, and the cost will have to fall. Once the customers no longer have the deep pockets of govt. to draw on, colleges will be forced to lower tuition or go out of business as their customers would no longer be able to afford them.

As for the rest of it, I'm looking to alter behavior as a long term solution to the problem. If a person or couple expects or knows that the society will pick up the tab for their carelessness or poor choices, or allow them an easy out via killing the unborn child, they have little motivation to behave better. If, on the other hand they know they're gonna be on the hook for it, they will be more motivated to make responsible choices.

This will take at least a generation to change societal behavior, just as it has taken generations to form the attitudes we have now.

I find that argument unconvincing and purely emotional.

How? If an illegal who kills someone was never allowed into the country, is it not a simple fact that the victim wouldn't have been killed by him?

[jelgate]

Because it has no basis in fact. Their is no evidence to your claim

[SoulReaver]

+interlude+

dug up this news from down under (a bit dated somehow I missed it when it came out) :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8437371.html

a very well thought out & sensible law of course but it just doesn't go far enough - so how about a notarized contract for each encounter?

[Annoyed]

+interlude+

dug up this news from down under (a bit dated somehow I missed it when it came out) :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8437371.html

a very well thought out & sensible law of course but it just doesn't go far enough - so how about a notarized contract for each encounter?

That's old news in many colleges in the U.S. & is likely to spread to other aspects of society as well.

There is an old joke that goes along the lines of "It's not rape or harassment until she changes her mind the next morning". Crap like this is bringing an entirely new shade of meaning to that.

[Annoyed]

This kind of crap scares me. Not the altered video itself, but the reaction to it.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...-for-campaigns

And we are already seeing legislators trying to criminalize what is essentially free speech.

Sorry, that's the wrong answer.

What we ought to do is legislate that FB or any other social networking site is forbidden to censor content in any way, and at the same time, the public needs to be educated that just about anything posted on any social media outlet could be fake.

The idea is the same as any free speech; let the speaker say what he wishes and let the audience decide the value of it.

The only possible acceptable censorship would be for pr0n, but that's walking close to the line also, I'd rather see minors banned from social networking period for a host of other reasons as well as this.

[Chaka-Z0]

+interlude+

dug up this news from down under (a bit dated somehow I missed it when it came out) :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8437371.html

a very well thought out & sensible law of course but it just doesn't go far enough - so how about a notarized contract for each encounter?

I think it's a good law overall. GHB is everywhere now, douchebags will try their best to get a girl drugged or so drunk that she'll say yes to anything. This might sound macho a bit, but that is the reason a girl should never go out in a bar by herself, have some friends to watch over you. I've seen it happen to others and girl friends of mine that we had to bring back home because she was messed up after just one drink, it was obvious somebody added some drops to her drink.

Other than that I mean proving a yes in court is hearsay and a yes isn't considered consent if the person is intoxicated, so it's more of a ''paper law'' than anything else. Sometimes pieces like that are passed just to pass a message, I wouldn't look much into it beyond that.

[Annoyed]

I think it's a good law overall. GHB is everywhere now, douchebags will try their best to get a girl drugged or so drunk that she'll say yes to anything. This might sound macho a bit, but that is the reason a girl should never go out in a bar by herself, have some friends to watch over you. I've seen it happen to others and girl friends of mine that we had to bring back home because she was messed up after just one drink, it was obvious somebody added some drops to her drink.

Other than that I mean proving a yes in court is hearsay and a yes isn't considered consent if the person is intoxicated, so it's more of a ''paper law'' than anything else. Sometimes pieces like that are passed just to pass a message, I wouldn't look much into it beyond that.

And that right there is immediate legal grounds for a rape charge the next morning, when she regrets her decision to go home with the guy she hooked up with. That old joke about "until she changes her mind the next morning" is starting to become very real.

Any guy that picks up a girl in a bar these days faces a possible criminal proceeding the next day when she sobers up.

And no, I'm not talking about date rape drugs or extreme levels of intoxication, either. Some states (such as NY) are considering lowering the legal standard for intox. to .05%. That's two drinks in a petite style female. Most states it's currently .08%. That's 3-4 drinks in a small female. She could have those drinks with her friends she went to a bar with, hook up with some guy, regret it the next morning, and file charges. Is that fair to the male involved?

Maybe young males who are still on the prowl for a mate ought to listen to Alyssa Milano's "NoSex" nonsense until the legal climate is more evenly balanced.

[aretood2]

I have no problem with K-12 public education as a concept or something that we should be doing. My issues with that are in regards to its execution; it is far too expensive and is all too often used as political indoctrination rather than actually education. But that's another discussion.

Indoctrination is also rampant in secondary education. But most people look at the cost of secondary education, and I've stated my suggestion for that. Take govt. money out of it, and the cost will have to fall. Once the customers no longer have the deep pockets of govt. to draw on, colleges will be forced to lower tuition or go out of business as their customers would no longer be able to afford them.

As for the rest of it, I'm looking to alter behavior as a long term solution to the problem. If a person or couple expects or knows that the society will pick up the tab for their carelessness or poor choices, or allow them an easy out via killing the unborn child, they have little motivation to behave better. If, on the other hand they know they're gonna be on the hook for it, they will be more motivated to make responsible choices.

The innocent kids be damned? You seem to have a ignored a great deal of what I posted and then went of on a tangent based on your own lack of understanding on how education and the economy work. For example, fully government funded systems like in Europe and elsewhere do not seem to behave the way you claim they would. Is the US some sort of magical place where economics and human behavior is just different from any another place?

This will take at least a generation to change societal behavior, just as it has taken generations to form the attitudes we have now.

Except the things you are talking about have already been tried and they have failed. In countries where there is no social welfare people still have multiple kids they can't afford by our standards of what that means. You seem to live in this fantasy world where human behavior differs from that of reality.

How? If an illegal who kills someone was never allowed into the country, is it not a simple fact that the victim wouldn't have been killed by him?

Because there's no guarantee that said person would have been kept out or found/deported prior to committing said crime. This situation is so uncommon that you are left with specific situations that have no guaranteed alternate outcomes. People can still sneak through a wall or overstay a visa or sneak in in many different ways. There is no reason to believe that a Trump wall would have prevented any specific individual from coming in and committing a crime. It is purely a Xenophobe's machinations that you have bought into. You see someone claiming to be conservative make an argument and you fall for it simply because "liberals" don't like it.

This kind of crap scares me. Not the altered video itself, but the reaction to it.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...-for-campaigns

And we are already seeing legislators trying to criminalize what is essentially free speech.

Sorry, that's the wrong answer.

What we ought to do is legislate that FB or any other social networking site is forbidden to censor content in any way, and at the same time, the public needs to be educated that just about anything posted on any social media outlet could be fake.

The idea is the same as any free speech; let the speaker say what he wishes and let the audience decide the value of it.

The only possible acceptable censorship would be for pr0n, but that's walking close to the line also, I'd rather see minors banned from social networking period for a host of other reasons as well as this.

So the US Government tells private companies what messages they have to allow and not allow? You don't see the danger in that?