darth_ender

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Democrat Party

You can do better.

I’d like to know what you are taking issue with other than pointing out that things are not black-and-white. Especially when that is taken out of context, I don’t know what your are upset with. I am not accusing all Democrats of anything, just like I am trying to point out that one cannot accuse Republicans or conservatives or pro-lifers of being one-size-fits-all.

TV’s Frink said:

Sure.

JEDIT: I kinda stopped reading after your first two points…

I don’t know what the rest of your post said because you’re so wrong that there is no point.

While this is not actually true, it is aggravating when someone says something like it.

I do hope that one day, our country will support unborn life in most circumstances. Who cares what the prevailing opinion of today is?

TV’s Frink said:

Oh and by the way, pulled out of that article - a poll from 2017 showing that in fact he’s on the wrong side of history.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

And this proves…?

Public opinions are known to fluctuate. Perhaps, one day they will drop. Even Republicans used to be evenly split, and now they find themselves far more pro-life.

I don’t care how popular something is nationwide. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and I will fight for the life of an unborn child till my dying breath. It has nothing to do with denying women their rights. It has everything to do with granting a child his/her rights.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

On the right side of history - those that support the following:

-Women gaining the right to vote

Oh, you mean like basically how the Republican Party did this.

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democratic Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

-Gay people gaining the right to marry

You are correct that Republicans have been more opposed than Democrats. However, to paint Democrats as always favoring is dishonest. In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced that they supported traditional marriage and opposed gay marriage.

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/10/axelrod-says-obama-lied-about-opposing-gay-marriage-its-another-convenient-evolution/?utm_term=.364c75e092a8

Of course, you may argue that it was purely political and that they only did so to secure political support. But support from whom? From the Democrat constituents. For instance, in 2008 when they both ran for president, only 50% of Democrats supported gay marriage.

-Republicans gaining the right to force my wife and I

Actually, “Republicans gaining the right to force my wife and me…”

Sorry, but I feel a little levity could lighten this serious conversation. No offense is intended 😃

to carry our 21-week-fetus with several abnormalities (including missing organs that, you know, will allow our daughter to, you know, LIVE) to term

So, I suppose that instead of having the conversation that abortion should not be allowed except in certain circumstances, let’s just make it allowable in as many circumstances as possible. Instead of attempting to minimize it except when a child has no prospect for life, or for rape, or for incest, or for the mother’s health, let’s just make it universally available for all including those who are using it as their backup birth control. Oh, and many Republicans actually would support legislation that would have allowed abortion in your case.

From yhwx’s article:

It would make nearly all abortions after 20 weeks illegal… [emphasis added]

I did look it up, and this particular bill does not include your circumstances. However, though I could not find any polling data, I know that a number of conservatives and pro-lifers actually would back you up. Unfortunately, we have to neatly divide ourselves into the heuristically simplistic pro-life and pro-choice camps, and we have to assume that the opposing side is universally taking the most extreme views on the subject just so that we can have a black-and-white argument and paint our opponents as vile and unethical.

I will drop a link to a page in this thread where I jumped in to argument against abortion. I hope that my views are laid even clearer there.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Politics-2-Electric-Boogaloo/id/53003/page/52#1039247

And here is the thread I started several years ago, which would also be enlightening.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-thread-where-we-make-enemies-out-of-friends-aka-the-abortion-debate-thread/id/13620/page/1

So yeah, f*** him.

Yep. There couldn’t be any good to his motivation, even if we disagree. He falls into the pro-life group, and we know that every one of those is interested in nothing except limiting my choices in my particular circumstances. Screw him and his ilk.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

That’s probably true of more pro-lifers than you think.

That’s exactly how to have constructive dialogue with the opposite side.

It’s probably true that more pro-choicers just want to kill babies than you think.

(quoted text from spambot deleted by moderator)

You’re right, you definitely need someone to write your papers for you.

Moderator notice - please do NOT quote or reply to spam or spambots - it makes the mods lives a little more difficult in ridding the place of them - thank you.

Though please PM a moderator if/when you do see some spam or suspicious posts - for sake of clarity… paja’s posts don’t count 😉

CatBus said:

Hey, I get it, and it’s all good. I’d rather be your collateral damage than a lot of other people. And no, I’m not hitting on you.

You’re not? Well, now you’ve insulted me.

I admit that was pretty snarky, but I can’t help but get irritated. So often, people mischaracterize those who are pro-life, whether willfully or in stupidity, and I find it very frustrating. Your comment would appear neutral in isolation, but you have a lengthy post history identifying when Republicans are “at it again,” pointing out the political maneuvers they pull. Admittedly, your analyses are interesting, but they never appear to be neutral. You always seem to point out these tricks when they serve an interest on the Right.

You’ve always been rather reasonable, so forgive my rudeness. I don’t mean to insult you. It’s just a topic that I feel passionate about and I don’t care for oversimplification of my perspective. You are collateral damage from my general irritation. Sorry.

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

CatBus said:

Elected officials count the votes (the job of the Majority Whip) before they’re cast. Bills are assured passage before they go to the floor. There are only two reasons bills ever fail on the floor like this:

1. The majority whip really screwed up, and somebody’s going to pay
2. This is a vote only for show, so that people can make pre-written speeches to reprint on their campaign materials during the next election, to rally their base

Take a wild guess which one this was.

So weird when politicians do those, you know, political things.

Thank goodness it’s just limited to Republicans or the country would really be in trouble.

You’d have to call it the “If I Were a Rich Man” thread.

You can’t translate these messages because of how the forum converts the characters.

This forum software likes to parse the characters in a word way, making conversion to text very difficult 😦

- … … … … … .- … – …- -.-. … …-. …- -. .- … -.-. — -. …- . .-. - … -. --. -.-. --… . -.-. … … -. - — . -. --. .-… … … … -·-·–

paja said:

Welcome to the Morse code

There is only two rules.

Rule 1. You can only speak in Morse Code only.

Rule 2. No Shirts, No Shoes.

I will welcome you here Please post here and thank you. 😀

.-. . .–. — .-. - . -… .-.-.-

Just so it’s clear, I didn’t add the captions. Just thought it was funny.

Possessed said:

I could have sworn that I made it but I think that is the thread I was thinking of.

Possessed is darth_ender sock confirmed!

You handsome devil, you!

I am Turok!

TV’s Frink said:

Would you please stop posting whatever it is you are posting lately?

You just have to Czech out the Google translation.

Happy to hear this. With the added breathing room, are you considering adding General Grievous’s introduction back in? While he’s a weak character, I always hated his sudden existence in ROTS and would love to watch home actually properly introduced in an interesting interquel trilogy.

DominicCobb said:

I honestly don’t understand why warb got so upset. I’d imagine Frink feels the same way.

So I guess, accidental bully?

In this case perhaps, but I’ve honestly felt he’s been that way a lot more for the past few months.

I’m calling dog’s bollocks on that one.

Recently, there was a patient on my psychiatric floor at the hospital. He was committed for involuntary treatment, but he didn’t actually have a psychiatric disorder. He was a criminal. He would knock over tables and threaten injury to others so he could get arrested and get out, but never actually injured someone. He showed the kind of self-control that indicated he was a man who knew right where the limit was to avoid serious criminal charges or end up in restraints. He pushed the limits right up to the point where he felt we might intervene in a drastic way, but stopped short of crossing the most serious lines.

Not at all saying Frink is equivalent to this guy, but he kind of does the same thing on a smaller scale. He pushes the limits of the rules right up to the point that he could almost receive moderator action, but he never quite crosses that line.

I hate to say that because I genuinely like Frink, but there’s truth to it. He’s a genuinely nice guy, but if he disagrees with something, he will push and push, and if you get offended, that’s your problem. However, if you’ve offended him, even unintentionally, that’s still your problem. I feel he really needs to learn to back off a bit and let others disagree it have their way without making life needlessly difficult for them.