War & Politicsobama's speech

 

Press Ctrl+Enter to quickly submit your post
Quick Reply  
 
 
  
 From:  fixrman   
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.30 In reply to 41193.21 
Quote: 
But I was more referring to the ineptitude with which the political class responded to the situation (or in Obama's case singularly failed to, which is fucking weird for a second term president for whom the whole Ferguson thing must touch on issues of importance).

What's even more weird is the lack of crticism for the obama administration; if George Bush or any other Republican had been POTUS, the media wailings and criticisms would be loud and long. Look at how the media criticised GWB for Katrina, when in fact, although the Feds could have done more, it was really the local, State governments that failed to act and people largely did not evacuate even though they should have.

GWB went on TV, nationally broadcast, and called the storm a dangerous Category Five hurricane, calling for the people of the Gulf Coast communities to put their safety and their families safety above all else and move to safe ground. Bush had already spoken to Ray Nagin who was central to the problems NO. Nagin, failed to implement an evacuation plan until less than a day before Katrina hit. There were parking lots full of buses that could have been used for evacuation, but Nagin was worried about insurance and a shortage of bus drivers. Nagin is going to jail for corruption in relation to Katrina rebuilding. Although Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin (both Democrats) were slow to act especially in asking for help as is required, FEMA and Bush ended up taking most of the blame. Democrats get a free pass.

obama got more involved in the Trayvon Martin case and stupidly made the inept comment, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin". And that meant what? Perhaps obama's handlers decided that his reading from a teleprompter on the Brown (Ferguson) case might actually do more harm than good.
 

Quote: 
excludes lots of classes of prisoners which are included in other countries' figures and still manages to dwarf the numbers for any comparable country. England and Wales are on 148.

Is it possible that other countries include our excludes in their general population? I don't see a mentioning on why the U.S. figures are broken out as they are, do you?

Curiously your population figures fail to mention some interesting facts:

U.S. population: 318M; England, Scotland, Wales 64M; Seychelles, 92k; Saint Kitts, Nevis, 51K

While the U.S crime rate per 100 thousand based on population is 707, yours is 148; ESW population is just under 5 times what ours is, so actually your crime rate is higher than ours adjusted for total population, resulting in 732 per 100K. Seychelles would look even worse with a population of 92k and a per 100k of 868. But I am just spitballing here.

Quote: 
The causes of this problem are of course manifold. A few obvious ones being disenfrranchisement of minorities (it's not just blacks that are overrepresented in prisons, also hispanics), gun laws, popularity of 'tough on crime' stances with electorates, the fact that minorities are less likely to vote.

Blacks and Hispanics are also overrepresented via population densities in cities, which tend to be Democratic. They are not less likely to vote, especially in cities and where perhaps the presence of militant, baton-wielding Black Panthers may be present to dissuade white votes. In suburban and rural areas you definitely have my attention. All this said, I do agree in large measure that whites do not suffer the persecution that blacks do in situations involving crime. Black crime is sensationalised by the media (tends to be Liberal, Left, leaning - i.e Democratic) here which is odd considering Dems claim to represent minorites, especially blacks. Recently the Dems have claimed to be for Latinos as well, but recent actions (or inactions as it were) seem to indicate their overall motivation is to get votes rather than actual reforms to help Hispanics.
 

Quote: 
But I think the real clincher is the fact that many of your prisons are run as businesses and those businesses are owned, ultimately, by politicians, lawmakers and those with lobbying influence.

That's almost as bad as saying that there are nothing but innocent Black and Hispanic people in our prisons although we both know that isn't true. If prisons were big business there would be an incentive to increase their population through the incarceration of all people - if not certainly more minorities - but in Big Business, what would it matter? There are plenty of dirtbag white boys throughout the country who easily belong in the clink. Interestingly, prison workers are generally represented by unions, so if anyone questions the amount of imprisonment or the number of prisons, the Dems are going to fight on that one because Democrats are pro-Union and Unions are pro-Democrat. Just so you know, businesses to my way of thinking are started for profit. Prisons do not operate profitably.
 

Quote: 
It's a humanitarian crime that dwarfs anything China, Russia or NK are up to and yet it goes largely uncommented upon.

The humanitarian crimes are perpetrated when a guy like Rodney King gets beaten. That was sensationalised too, but King was likely drunk driving and was attempting to elude the police at high speed. He also apparently charged a police officer, a fact which is sometimes disputed but may be supported by video. The real crime was that the police officers, though several were fired, were acquitted on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and use of excessive force. Scores of police departments across the country have been investigated or otherwise have come under scrutiny for racial profiling. It does happen and is just as wrong as letting the white guy go for a similar crime.

How do gun laws figure into the whole thing? Are you for more gun laws or less? If you support fewer guns, then I'd suggest taking another look at your crime rate vs ours whilst adjusting your population to the size of ours. All things being equal, I project your crime rate would still go up with more people.

 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.31 In reply to 41193.30 
Quote: 
What's even more weird is the lack of crticism for the obama administration
I've seen tonnes of criticism of the Obama administration. I've seen nothing but criticism. I don't know what you've been reading.
 
Quote: 
Is it possible that other countries include our excludes in their general population?
No, if there are exclusions then they are noted, as they are for the U.S.:
 
Quote: 
United States. Rate is for inmates held in adult facilities. For juvenile detention numbers see Youth incarceration in the United States. See notes at the bottom of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) source table used by the World Prison Brief to calculate the rate in the above list: "Total includes all inmates held in local jails, state or federal prisons, or privately operated facilities. Excludes inmates held in U.S. Territories (appendix tables 2 and 3), military facilities (appendix tables 2 and 4), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] facilities, facilities contracted by the U.S. Marshals Service, jails in Indian country, or juvenile facilities."[4] BJS has numbers for U.S. Territories, military facilities, ICE, and for jails in Indian country.[5][6][7][8]
Only the U.S. and North Korea have such exclusions.
 
Quote: 
I don't see a mentioning on why the U.S. figures are broken out as they are, do you?
For the same reason North Korea's are, in an attempt to hide the problem.
 
Quote: 
Curiously your population figures fail to mention some interesting facts:

U.S. population: 318M; England, Scotland, Wales 64M; Seychelles, 92k; Saint Kitts, Nevis, 51K

While the U.S crime rate per 100 thousand based on population is 707, yours is 148; ESW population is just under 5 times what ours is, so actually your crime rate is higher than ours adjusted for total population, resulting in 732 per 100K. Seychelles would look even worse with a population of 92k and a per 100k of 868. But I am just spitballing here.
You seem to have grossly misunderstood the figures. They're not crime rates, they're incarceration rates.

Crime rates per country are very difficult to compare (because different nations obviously define different things as a crime) but in most figures the U.S. comes out kinda ok, you certainly have a high crime rate but not that much higher than comparable countries. Some figures here. Which is part of the point - your incarceration rate is 478% that of the UK while your crime rate is only 121% that of the UK (for example).

But no, the figures I linked are already per population. They represent the number of incarcerated people (minus all those exemptions) per 100,000 population. You are adjusting a figure for population when it's already adjusted for population. Your total prison population is of course higher and would be expected to be, you have far more people.

To be clear, and using these figures:

The USA has a population of 308 million, of whom 2,292,133 are in prison.

The UK has a population of 62.5 million, of whom 94,511 are in prison.

So your population is 5x larger but the number of people you incarcerate is 24x larger.

For context, the oppressive regime of China has a population of 1.6 billion and still incarcerates fewer people than the U.S.: about 1.4 million (though their figures are as dodgy as yours).

 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.32 In reply to 41193.31 
Quote: 
You seem to have grossly misunderstood the figures. They're not crime rates, they're incarceration rates.

That is correct. I was thinking one thing and typed another which blew apart my reply. Sorry.
 

Quote: 
Your total prison population is of course higher and would be expected to be, you have far more people.

That was my basic point. But I don't see why you refer to U.S. Figures as "dodgy"? First off I could understand your point if the U.S. were hiding figures, they're not. China, for example holds a lot of people in detention centers and those are not counted. So the U.S. could also hold a percentage in "detention centers" and thus make the numbers look better, since you seem to think there is a deliberate action to make our numbers look better. I disagree with that.

People who cannot make bail, are considered a flight risk or are violent are in jail. Jail (temporary) is not the same as prison.They are awaiting trail and counted as incarcerated (in the study you posted). Should we just release them back into the general population in the hopes they arrive for trial? As you have stated, since laws for crimes vary that will also affect the numbers in prisons and reflects those who are actually serving time after trial and been found guilty. But our figures do include those in jail.

Interestingly, jail and prison seems to be viewed as being the same thing over there.

We do incarcerate people over here in an extremely wasteful manner by the imprisonment of people for victimless crimes. We could reduce our prison population by 30-80% if those people were not in our prisons. I am talking about drug users (50% Federal prisons pop.) and Public Order (35%) offenses (people arrested on weapons charges, public drunkeness, illegal gambling, prostitution). I don't know what should necessarily be done about the illegal behaviour, but certainly imprisoning someone who is non-violent and really only hurting themselves is ridiculous - until of course they start other behaviour which may include a victim such as theivery to support a drug or gambling habit or violence in performing those behaviours.

But of course I would suspect that guys like Roy Walmsley write books, then he sells lots of books to people and prisons actually end up being big business for him. So without prisons, what does he write about?

Interestingly, Democratic Underground has an article or more on his thoughts. Perhaps if Democratic underground came above ground, they'd advance their agenda better. Another interesting thing to note is while Democrats love to talk about limiting government and how evil the Republicans are, they are typically the ones making all of those silly laws, rules and regulations that have to get enforced. So who is going to enforce all of those laws the Dems dream up? Big Government, the very thing they claim to want to avoid. No wonder Dems are always being accused of having pretzel logic.


 

 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.33 In reply to 41193.32 
Quote: 
China, for example holds a lot of people in detention centers and those are not counted
That's exactly what they (the US) do. I don't believe the sole intent is to obfuscate the facts (there are different categories of prisoners, as you rightly say), but I do think that's a nice fringe benefit.

But you certainly count low, compared directly to other countries (excluding juveniles for example).

But yeah, that's all kinda beside the point. That being that you imprison an offensively high proportion of your population and an equally offensively high proportion of your minorities (way higher than an increased crime rate would justify, in both cases).

I agree with your assessment - too many prisoners for non-violent crimes. And I'd reiterate that while the rich and powerful (including the political class) profit from this. They'll continue to drum up (massively out of proportion) fear of crime, campaign on 'tough on crime' and line their pockets.

It's a broken system. You're the most advanced and wealthy nation in the history of the world and yet you lock up a greater proportion of your citizens than any nation in history. It's not right.

I'll respond to the rest in a separate post cos it's a separate issue.

 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.34 In reply to 41193.32 
Ok, this is just a general response about USA party politics in general.

We generally don't respond to this stuff because we (i.e. those of us outside of the US) can't really relate to it. Your politics doesn't really bear much resemblance to anything outside the US.

You've got two centre-right parties (in European terms) neither of which has a really solid historical ideological basis. Both are really (if indirectly, in the case of the Republicans) descended from the Democratic-Republican Party which did exist in a genuine ideological dichotomy with the Federalists. The fact that both of your parties (in what is a de facto two party system) descend from the same ideological base is quite telling. You essentially have two parties of Whigs.

The only real political difference between the two is that the Democrats are margianlly more socially liberal. In broad terms you couldn't really get an ant's bollock between them in terms of economic or foreign policy.

So they create issues to split the vote: Abortion, 'Big vs. Small Government', 'Family Values' and meaningless shit like that.

Abortion is a good example of the absolute fucking nonsense of US politics. It's probably the most superficially divisive of all US political issues with vehement sentiments on both sides and countless hours wasted talking, arguing, writing, debating and (as it all really amounts to) posturing over it.

The reason it's bollocks is that the vast majority of the general public agree on abortion: It's unfortunate, it should happen as little as possible and it should be legal and safe. The reason it's even more bollocks is that the (national) political parties agree on that, too. In terms  of national policy there's really fuck all difference between either party on this issue. 

So why is so much time spent on such a non-issue? Because the Republicans can keep the support of the Christian right (and the funding they bring) by talking about it and the Democrats can mobilise their left (and the funding and grass-roots support they bring) by talking about it. It's an issue that works beautifully for both of the parties, maintaining party unity but is absolutely meaningless in terms of actual politics, party politics. the majority of the electorate or national policy.

The fact that the Christian right and the Republican party are in bed togther is another example of the absolute nonsensicality of US politics. These two entities agree on absolutely nothing of substance. Abortion keeps them together but they don't even really agree on this - for the Christians it's an absolute moral issue whereas true political republicans simply consider it a state rather than federal issue. That's not political agreement, it's strategic alliance. Which would be fine except that it hugely distorts the issue and does immense harm to the democratic process.

And then there's the libertarians who do at least have something resembling a political philosophy and one which makes sense in the context of US political and cultural history. It's an utterly insane ideology in a United States where the political and economic discourse is already dictated too much by corporate self-interest, but at least it's cohesive. 

The US is, in a global context, an extremely politically unified country - that is to say that most people by far agree on most things, especially the big things (i.e. economics and foreign and (in broad terms) domestic policy). The parties use wedge issues to create artificial and largely meaningless divisions in order to create this false sense of polarisation where really none exists.

The real defining difference between the two parties is (a little over-)simply:
  • Republicans believe strongly in trickle-down (and the rest of their policy grows from this).
  • Democrats believe slightly less in trickle-down (and ditto)
Everything else  - Big Govt. vs. Small Govt. for example - stems from this.

I honestly believe that most people in both parties genuinely want what's best for the country. And that they both genuinely want to help those worst off - that they want to make a fairer, more prosperous and more peaceful society. They simply disagree on how to best achieve that.

An ongoing national debate on that topic would be of enormous value to the electorate and would constitute a real exploration of actual political issues - the other issues would be placed before the electorate in a meaningful context - and the public would be able to make sense of them, make meaningful, informed political decisions on all the issues.

But it won't happen because it's hard and complicated and it's not what the entities that fund political campaigns want politicians to talk about. 






 
 
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.35 In reply to 41193.32 
The point of that is to say: from my point of view US politics bears no resemblance to what is called politics anywhere else in the world.

Seeing it from the outside it's like looking at lunatics wrestling in their own shit as a crowd of shit-splattered lunatics cheer on. And I'd rather just not get involved nor waste much thought on it.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  patch  
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.36 In reply to 41193.35 
Notwithstanding your previous post, presumably.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)  
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.37 In reply to 41193.34 
I don't think there's need to drag Ant's bollocks into this, old boy.

truffy.gifbastard by name
bastard by nature

+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  patch     
41193.38 In reply to 41193.36 
I was just about to cross the line into too much thought, there.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)     
41193.39 In reply to 41193.37 
Oh there's always a need for Ant's bollocks, old bean.
+1/1
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.40 In reply to 41193.34 
There isn't much I will diagree with in your post. It is well thought out and nearly [if not] entirely on point.

I want to caution you on one point in fact however which makes a difference when we talk about idealogies and where they came from and why:

The real reason, aside from anything anyone will ever tell you (but I suspect you may already know), is that the United States was not formed just to promote religious freedom and get representation. Sure, we didn't want to pay taxes to mean old King George. We abhorred the taxes imposed by Parliament. But more importantly, the spectre of continued English, King -rule threatenened the interests of moneyed, propertied whites. The fact that freedoms became part of the reasoning was a bit of subterfuge really on the part of our Statesmen; they had to make it attractive to the everyman in order to get them to do the fighting for them. You didn't see Ben Franklin or Patrick Henry painted in battlefield artworks brandishing muskets, they were newsmen and landowners, respectively and they got common people to fight for them.

Interestingly enough, one of the first things politicised was divorce, not typically legal at the time. Any woman who considered herself a Patriot was granted a divorce from her Loyalist husband if so desired. Native Americans were not really sympathetic to the American rebels or British (fearing reprisals from either), but the Iroquois did join against the rebels hoping to halt American expansion into their lands. As time went on, various tribes sided with one or the other; unfortunately they were sort of in a no win scenario with either. When the Iroquios fled to Canada, they found after the war was over that the British had ceded land they didn't control to America. So the problems with NAs started early. Blacks also were politicised early on, the British trying to encourage slave revolts, but they had to be careful doing this lest their own slave trade be endangered or the social order be disrupted by revolts (West Indies) by their own slaves. Interesting times, and it was later easy to demonise Indians (as Columbus called them, but he was an idiot of the highest order).

So really, we started out as unified then broke apart so to speak. There are always some who think theyhave a better idea or a better way of doing things. So we had multiple parties; I think every possible political name combination has been used to describe groups and their political style of representation. Patriots, Whigs, Americans - whatever.

I am with you that there is very little difference between Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps years ago there was but now it is just about power and control. That is where the demonisation comes in. They have to demonise each other so they can get into power. Fortunately our system, albeit a very imperfect one, kepps the pendulum swinging, but it never stays in the middle lest the middle be also demonised. Libertarians don't have a chance of winning because the money machines (MIC) are well entrenched in conventional D vs. R politics.

Abortion should never be allowed to be a part of politics. It is a moral issue rather than either a legal or political one. The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed. Simple as that. Yes, oversimplification and the feminazis will bitch about it (ever notice they never much look like they'd ever need an abortion?) but in this day and age there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy in most cases, rape aside. Rape is often used as a crutch in support of abortion, but rape pregnancies are difficult to actually account for. I agree that abortion should be rare, although legal.

Your example of Republicans and Christians is actually an excellent example, but that is not to say there aren't Christian Democrats because there are. Being Methodist, I see both sides. One area where there seems to be a lot of disagreement is where alcohol is concerned. Methodism does not allow alcohol, either for communal wine or events such as Beef and Beer as a fundraiser with any other festivity. Interestingly, Catholics (despite the protestations of some Methodists and Other Protestants) are indeed Christians and let the alcohol flow freely for the aforementioned events - gambling as well! Why do the Methodists not allow drinking? Perhaps because John Wesley was a bit of a kook with an estranged wife and he felt it should be forbidden (although emphasis was given to "strong drink"). But Protestants and Catholics are Christian, and according to American law, both drink and gambling are legal. Abortion only adds to the confusion because of traditional church stances. Abortion is nothing more than a political football. Candidates have to be careful how they speak of it for fear alienating their base or in appealing to their opposition for support.
 
Quote: 
The parties use wedge issues to create artificial and largely meaningless divisions in order to create this false sense of polarisation where really none exists.
Abortion, voter IDs, welfare, health care, immigration are all issues that all are largely agreed on but are turned into bargaining chips for political support.

Republicans: Pro-business and for people to make their own way rather than having government provide. Allow the marketplace, free enterprise and competition work to strike the balances.

Democrats: Pro-Union, have the government force businesses (taxes) to help take care of what people may not be able to do for themselves, the government will provide the rest. The government will oversee and regulate so that businesses cannot control the money. Claim to be for the "little guy"
 
Quote: 
And then there's the libertarians who do at least have something resembling a political philosophy and one which makes sense in the context of US political and cultural history. It's an utterly insane ideology in a United States where the political and economic discourse is already dictated too much by corporate self-interest, but at least it's cohesive. 
It may be cohesive, but there are elements about the Libertarian Aprty that limit its viability. Their stance on separation of church and state is not supported by the Constitution, rather that reference was a reassurance to the Danbury Baptist Association that the United States could not form a national church or interfere with their manner of worship. This has been construed to mean Freedom from Religion, which is what some prefer but is not the within context of the letter.

Open immigration is another stance they tend toward, but that will never fly with the American people, neither will neutrality and I doubt non interventionism.
 
Quote: 
They simply disagree on how to best achieve that.
Been that way pretty much forever, but more glaring since the second world war.
 
Quote: 
An ongoing national debate on that topic would be of enormous value to the electorate and would constitute a real exploration of actual political issues - the other issues would be placed before the electorate in a meaningful context - and the public would be able to make sense of them, make meaningful, informed political decisions on all the issues.

But it won't happen because it's hard and complicated and it's not what the entities that fund political campaigns want politicians to talk about.
 
For a measure of the population, that debate would be lost on them. They are too busy watching American Idol, Britain's got Talent, Survivor and Modern Family. It is not the watching of those programmes that is the problem, it is that those programmes take priority over other aspects of their lives. They tend to be those who vote on "hot-button" issues alone, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights. Presented with valid arguments either way, they respond only in self-convenience or just to beat the person with whom they might disagree. Low information voters is all they are. They tend to be the loudmouth sign and banner wavers. In many cases, when presented with the oppositions platform, they may not even know their own candidate is opposed to that platform. Unfortunately, there are too many of them in contrast to the other people who are relatively aware of what is going on in the country or at least make a concerted effort to be informed.

I'd submit a better informed electorate does not vote barack hussein obama as their "first black preseident"; for them, it was nothing more than a milestone. That is not to say that their only choice at that point was Romney, but obama has proven to be not the best guy to lead America. His supporters are getting harder to find every day. The low information voters are going to want another milestone in a female president. If the female I am thinking of is who they want to vote for, I sincerely hope theirs is a failed endeavor.
 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  koswix  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.41 In reply to 41193.40 
>> The easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid women to keep their legs closed

I'm sure the rest of your post is well thought out and reasoned but I'm afraid I stopped reading at that sentence.

I guess that makes me a feminazi, but surely the easiest way to make the abortion issue go away is for stupid men to keep their junk in the trunk.

 ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘                              
If Feds call you and say something bad on me, it may prove what I said are truth, they are afraid of it.

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  ANT_THOMAS  
 To:  koswix     
41193.42 In reply to 41193.41 
This all day long.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)  
 To:  koswix     
41193.43 In reply to 41193.41 
When it comes to stupid men and women, it's a two-way street. A game of two halves.

Trouble is, because they're stupid nothing you can say will make the slightest difference.

truffy.gifbastard by name
bastard by nature

0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   
 To:  koswix     
41193.44 In reply to 41193.41 
That too. It is a too way street. But stupid men never do. Even smart men don't.

I figured you would know what I was talking about. The smart women already keep their legs closed, insist on precautions or take the steps themselves.

Actually here, it might be construed to mean they should engage in bum fun instead. Anyway, I thought you called it a boot over there...
 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.45 In reply to 41193.44 
What Kos said. I agree with (and enjoyed) the bulk of your post but that line about women is totally unacceptable.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Linn (INDYLS)  
 To:  ALL
41193.46 
Oh boy. I started to formulate a reply but what Truffy said is too true -  to paraphrase, nothing you say to stupid makes the slightest difference.
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)  
 To:  Linn (INDYLS)     
41193.47 In reply to 41193.46 
Try me.

----
"Ninety percent of Americans use the Internet. The other ten percent use the banjo."
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  fixrman   
 To:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)     
41193.48 In reply to 41193.45 
Well, nothing like focusing on one aspect of something and only commenting on that.

Obviously, you didn't get it. The comment was not directed at all women, because all women are decidedly not stupid. But in this day and age, women who become pregnant against their wishes - with all the possible forms of contraception available - nearly everywhere, there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy to occur. Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here.

Stupid: Ill-advised, foolish, shortsighted, unthinking. I think they all fit. The Apostle Paul used silly to describe certain women. Perhaps that would have been a better fit.

Silly: irresponsible, imprudent, immature. Yes, that is a better fit.

Terry: Say Karen, how's about a bit of boom-boom?

Karen: Not prudent at this juncture, Terry - you've got no protection.

Terry: Aw, c'mon luv! Just a bit o...

Karen: No!

She has to carry it, I'd say the woman's got a bigger stake in it than the cad who is likely love 'em and leave 'em. The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many.

Perhaps I am just old-fashioned, or just old.  :-{)
 
  Did you ever see such a messed up situation in your whole life, son?
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

 From:  Drew (X3N0PH0N)  
 To:  fixrman      
41193.49 In reply to 41193.48 
Quote: 
Well, nothing like focusing on one aspect of something and only commenting on that.
Quote: 
I agree with (and enjoyed) the bulk of your post

Literally commented on the entire post, you madman.

The problem is singling out the women. In fact you say later:

Ok I can't do proper quotes any more, so here's an old fashioned quote:

"The guy has a moral obligation, but how many take it? By the rate of young, single moms - at least here, not many."

You kinda excuse the men. The tone is: Boys will be boys, so it's up to the women to take responsibility.

Regardless of who bears the brunt of the consequences, if someone gets pregnant then (in usual circumstances) two people are equally responsible.

"Further clarification on what was previously posted. Problem is too many use abortion as a birth control method - at least here."

I really don't believe that many do. I'm sure that some do, a tiny fraction, and you're right in that anyone behaving this way is 'too many'. But really it's entirely up to them, if they want to behave that way then that is their responsibility, that's the point of choice. While I believe that's wrong, I don't believe the state has any right to proscribe that behaviour (though I do think healthcare professionals should intervene).
0/0
 Reply   Quote More 

Reply to All  
 

1–20  21–40  41–60  …  81–88

Rate my interest:

Adjust text size : Smaller 10 Larger

Beehive Forum 1.5.2 |  FAQ |  Docs |  Support |  Donate! ©2002 - 2024 Project Beehive Forum

Forum Stats