- Time
- Post link
Nah. Just a reference to his old signature…something about killing terrorists and punching hippies.
- Time
- Post link
Seriously?
Where were you in '77?
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 358
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.
Times change, my friend.
I know. I’m just reminding everyone that kids can’t be trusted to make any decisions beyond, “which G-rated Pixar movie should I watch?” Even then you can’t trust them because they might pick Cars 2, so why are parents suddenly the most evil people since Hitler for not taking their supposedly transgender 7 year-olds to a doctor to treat their gender dysphoria? How about teaching your children that if you have the parts of a boy or a girl, then that’s what you technically are, but you can still dress, do, play, and act however you want, and once you’re 18 or a legally emancipated adult, you can pursue whatever gender therapy you want; what’s so bad about that?
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Darth Ender, I wanted to say that I also share your frustration with the state of this thread and am beyond thrilled to see another moderate conservative speak his mind. It’s very refreshing to have you here and I am right with you on the position of abortion.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Not that anybody asked or cares what I think about it, considering I hardly ever post in this thread, but I am pro life with the two very important, and very much real, exceptions of cases of rape and cases of medical complications or health problems that could very likely cause harm to the mother or the fetus if carried to term. And I will even admit that I’m much more adamant about the second one than I used to be since reading a story of a certain member of this forum.
And I’m not conservative or republican, or democrat, I’m just me because it seems silly to pick a party before knowing the issues. But I don’t care much about politics in general anyway.
- Time
- Post link
Not that anybody asked or cares what I think about it, considering I hardly ever post in this thread, but I am pro life with the two very important, and very much real, exceptions of cases of rape and cases of medical complications or health problems that could very likely cause harm to the mother or the fetus if carried to term. And I will even admit that I’m much more adamant about the second one than I used to be since reading a story of a certain member of this forum.
And I’m not conservative or republican, or democrat, I’m just me because it seems silly to pick a party before knowing the issues. But I don’t care much about politics in general anyway.
I agree completely. I don’t get why that is a controversial position to hold.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
So after digesting darth_ender’s post for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that pro-choice is a bad label, for a different reason. While darth_ender’s position really amounts to wanting to prevent the abortion from happening (although the logic also appears to apply equally to abortions and some forms of birth control like the so-called morning-after pill), my position (and I can really only speak for myself here) is twofold: that abortion is a catch-all safety net for the woman if everything else fails, but that the ultimate goal is to prevent the woman from having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion at all. i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve access to healthcare, promote fetal health, provide financial support, etc.
So reaching the “choice” at the end of that string of policies (or lack thereof) really in most cases marks some sort of societal failure. If the goal is to prevent the situation from ever reaching the “choice” phase, it’s hardly a pro-choice position. It’s really just the position that you prefer the legal safety net to the illegal safety net, not that you want anyone to actually get there.
It does mark some common ground, though. Although I see the choice as the final safety net in case society fails, darth_ender sees the choice itself as a failure (but is it less of a failure if it’s done illegally?). But aside from that (and I realize, it’s a big “that”), the pre-choice stuff – preventing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to healthcare, promoting fetal health, providing support for families – seems like plenty of common ground for policy ideas. And assuming these common ground policies continue to reduce the number of abortions overall as they have already done, that would be considered forward movement by both sides. Of course, there may be some friction on specifics (sex ed, access to contraception, etc), but the issue still seems way more navigable on that end.
- Time
- Post link
Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.
Times change, my friend.
I know. I’m just reminding everyone that kids can’t be trusted to make any decisions beyond, “which G-rated Pixar movie should I watch?” Even then you can’t trust them because they might pick Cars 2, so why are parents suddenly the most evil people since Hitler for not taking their supposedly transgender 7 year-olds to a doctor to treat their gender dysphoria? How about teaching your children that if you have the parts of a boy or a girl, then that’s what you technically are, but you can still dress, do, play, and act however you want, and once you’re 18 or a legally emancipated adult, you can pursue whatever gender therapy you want; what’s so bad about that?
I thought you were jokingly referring to my comments on implied consent and taking away the choices of fetuses, in which case I was making a return joke.
- Time
- Post link
So after digesting darth_ender’s post for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that pro-choice is a bad label, for a different reason. While darth_ender’s position really amounts to wanting to prevent the abortion from happening (although the logic also appears to apply equally to abortions and some forms of birth control like the so-called morning-after pill), my position (and I can really only speak for myself here) is twofold: that abortion is a catch-all safety net for the woman if everything else fails, but that the ultimate goal is to prevent the woman from having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion at all. i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve access to healthcare, promote fetal health, provide financial support, etc.
Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.
So reaching the “choice” at the end of that string of policies (or lack thereof) really in most cases marks some sort of societal failure. If the goal is to prevent the situation from ever reaching the “choice” phase, it’s hardly a pro-choice position. It’s really just the position that you prefer the legal safety net to the illegal safety net, not that you want anyone to actually get there.
It does mark some common ground, though. Although I see the choice as the final safety net in case society fails, darth_ender sees the choice itself as a failure (but is it less of a failure if it’s done illegally?). But aside from that (and I realize, it’s a big “that”), the pre-choice stuff – preventing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to healthcare, promoting fetal health, providing support for families – seems like plenty of common ground for policy ideas. And assuming these common ground policies continue to reduce the number of abortions overall as they have already done, that would be considered forward movement by both sides. Of course, there may be some friction on specifics (sex ed, access to contraception, etc), but the issue still seems way more navigable on that end.
I think you make a fantastic point, and that is the reality of most people’s overall opposition to abortion as often as possible. I truly appreciate your clarification here, as I think you truly are finding the very similar aims between two seemingly polar opposites. In my mind, the Right would do well to abandon those efforts to control the morality of premarital sex and pregnancy prevention in favor of the greater goal of preventing abortion–those things that you say like sex education, contraception, prenatal care, and social programs to support postnatal health and development, particularly among the disadvantaged. This would make carrying a child to term an easier option for many women. Meanwhile, the Left would do well to impose greater restrictions on abortion, which to me would only permit them in the cases of incest, rape, health of the mother, or poor prognosis of the child. It may be that we will never meet the compromise I desire, but perhaps we can come closer if both sides come to a common understanding of motives as you and I have.
Thank you for your post. You are an extremely thoughtful individual and I enjoy your perspective and respect towards my point of view.
Oh, I obviously am displeased by abortion in any manner, legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. I think one final piece to help end abortion would be a shift in society where, whether or not people oppose premarital sex and pregnancy, greater support is given instead of social ostracism to those pregnant women.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Not that anybody asked or cares what I think about it, considering I hardly ever post in this thread, but I am pro life with the two very important, and very much real, exceptions of cases of rape and cases of medical complications or health problems that could very likely cause harm to the mother or the fetus if carried to term. And I will even admit that I’m much more adamant about the second one than I used to be since reading a story of a certain member of this forum.
And I’m not conservative or republican, or democrat, I’m just me because it seems silly to pick a party before knowing the issues. But I don’t care much about politics in general anyway.
- Time
- Post link
I sort of missed my window (a lack of a womb with a view, if you will), so I’ll just say I appreciate _ender’s more reasoned responses this time around. I admit I generalize a lot on abortion but I have also seen the views I’m describing many, many times.
There’s another angle no one has talked about, which is the woman’s right/choice to have an abortion for any reason at the very early stages of the pregnancy, as it is her body. A lot of men (and some women) don’t agree with that, and we also get into more well-trodden ground of the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the fetus, so it’s probably not worth bothering with (again) here.
- Time
- Post link
I am pro-choice. My reason is that nobody KNOWS at what point during development a fetus becomes a person. Science/medicine haven’t been able to answer that question definitively. Yes many people believe it is at the time of conception, but since that is just a belief, it amounts to a form of religion. Because those aspects of the fetus that a reasonable person would consider to indicate personhood (viability, physical developments, brain activity, etc) become increasingly evident over the course of development, I favor a sliding scale where restrictions on abortion increase over time in the womb.
Making abortion illegal in the first trimester thus, for example, seems to me a sort of religious decree, and not an appropriate legal mandate. It also has terrible personal and societal consequences.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
- Time
- Post link
Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”
He said:
“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”
Jeffress also said:
“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”
Ok then.
- Time
- Post link
Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”
He said:
“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”
Jeffress also said:
“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”
Ok then.
Sure, a letter written to Romans about not openly rebelling against the Roman Empire is actually about America being World Police.
This guy also said Obama was “paving the way for the antichrist”, so he’s out there.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.
I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.
This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”
He said:
“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”
Jeffress also said:
“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”
Ok then.
One could say the same about opposing communism. …So, the Vietnam War was a good idea?
You know, America doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to militarily forcing American policy on foreign countries against leaders we don’t like. I seem to recall it usually makes the natives mad.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
- Time
- Post link
And there’s this…
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.
I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.
- Time
- Post link
Paul Manafort: FBI ‘raided home of former Trump chairman’…
A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…
Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
‘How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com - includes info on how to ask for a fan project and how to search for projects and threads on OT•com.
A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)
Take your time to look around this site before posting… Do NOT just lazily make yet another ‘link request’ post - or a new thread asking for projects.
- Time
- Post link
Paul Manafort: FBI ‘raided home of former Trump chairman’…
Fake raid!
Man, that never gets old.
- Time
- Post link
Since the Russia story is a witch hunt, I guess that makes Manafort a witch.
- Time
- Post link
Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.
I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.
The morning after pill prevents ovulation, so it only works if the woman hasn’t ovulated yet. It just delays it long enough for the sperm to die off.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Time
- Post link
Since the Russia story is a witch hunt, I guess that makes Manafort a witch.
I wish someone would turn Trump into a newt.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
- Time
- Post link
Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”
He said:
“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”
Jeffress also said:
“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”
Ok then.
Wonderful, using the Bible to justify nuking countless innocent people. Just so it is clear, I do not consider Kim Jong Un or his minions innocent people, but I think it is clear that Nukes would take out a lot of ordinary citizens, citizens whom are not responsible for what is happening there right now.
- Time
- Post link
What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.
I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.
This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.
It boggles my mind why anyone voted for Trump in the General or Primary elections.