What's new

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics


LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
So you found someone with a hot take. I've heard about a woman who eats fiberglass insulation but that wouldn't justify a blanket condemnation of women because they eat fiberglass insulation and that is effectively what you are trying to do.
No, not a blanket condemnation. Just a condemnation of the politicians espousing the ban and those who voted them into office, and anyone else who supports it. It's stupid, remarkably stupid. And reeks of attempts to simply control people instead of doing what's best for the country.
 


Red

Well-Known Member
If you think there is such a law in any US state then it is you who Republicans should be most worried about when it comes to the mid-terms because a voter motivated by a fiction counts just as much as a voter who has all the information.
The largest group of voters believing in a fiction can be found among the MAGA Big Lie Republicans. But the Republicans are counting on as many MAGA 2020 election deniers as possible to be there for them, and voting at least in part on the basis of that very fictional fantasy that so motivates them.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Not sure this is a winning message either. Blake Masters is running for Senate in Arizona:


sees American governance as a piece of old software larded with junk code: an accumulation of inefficient solutions to coding errors encountered in its long existence. The best way to radically improve its operation… is to cease adding more workarounds and get rid of the junk code in one fell swoop. How? By replacing the president with a “Caesar” figure or “monarch” who would bypass the Constitution, shut down independent news outlets like CNN and The New York Times, and abolish many federal agencies.
This should be horrifying for any American who values freedom and our democracy. Peter Thiel, the billionaire funding his campaign:
The Thielites want to see the government hollowed out — to eject the administrative state and erase its memory — not to enhance liberty, but to make our nation’s current operating system more suitable for coercion. They wish to unseat the liberal technocratic elite only so they can install their own: a more competent, compliant and unfettered one.
This is fascism:
What this vision is not, is a conservatism of limits. Rather, it is Promethean, progressive, in the most basic sense: It deplores any constraint on its power to govern, shape the future, despoil the planet, innovate, and expand the American economy. All limits — pluralism, democracy, ecology, human frailty — must be overcome in pursuit of winning the world game, reasserting American dominance and dispelling our decadent malaise. (At one time, Mr. Thieland Mr. Masters were both interested in overcoming the ultimate limit: death itself.)
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
No, not a blanket condemnation. Just a condemnation of the politicians espousing the ban and those who voted them into office, and anyone else who supports it. It's stupid, remarkably stupid. And reeks of attempts to simply control people instead of doing what's best for the country.
I disagree with the idea of what is best for the country is letting women kill their children. I'm of the belief that a woman who intentionally kills her child should be subjected to the same consequences as a man who intentionally kills his child.

I can see justifications for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, birth defects, and life of the mother. That should be the common ground a solution can be fashioned from, but the statistical reality is that nearly all abortions do not fall in any of those categories and the pro-mothers-killing-children crowd have made very clear such restrictions are not acceptable. For all the cries about rape, incest, etc., the real point of contention is that one side wants the right for women to be able to kill perfectly healthy children who are the result of consensual sex while the other side finds that to be an awful thought. I think it is an awful thought. I think a women carrying out a premeditated killing of a perfectly healthy child is an awful thought. I don't care how inconvenient the perfectly healthy child might be, I don't condone killing it. It is a thing you and I will not see eye-to-eye on.
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
I disagree with the idea of what is best for the country is letting women kill their children. I'm of the belief that a woman who intentionally kills her child should be subjected to the same consequences as a man who intentionally kills his child.

I can see justifications for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, birth defects, and life of the mother. That should be the common ground a solution can be fashioned from, but the statistical reality is that nearly all abortions do not fall in any of those categories and the pro-mothers-killing-children crowd have made very clear such restrictions are not acceptable. For all the cries about rape, incest, etc., the real point of contention is that one side wants the right for women to be able to kill perfectly healthy children who are the result of consensual sex while the other side finds that to be an awful thought. I think it is an awful thought. I think a women carrying out a premeditated killing of a perfectly healthy child is an awful thought. I don't care how inconvenient the perfectly healthy child might be, I don't condone killing it. It is a thing you and I will not see eye-to-eye on.
Nice straw man attempt but this discussion was specifically about contraception.
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Nice straw man attempt but this discussion was specifically about contraception.
You mean you agree with the 99.9%+ of people who aren't in favor of banning contraception? I salute the bravery it must have taken to voice such a stance. If you need treatment for the PTSD from all the blowback you are receiving, I hear they are making real strides in the medical community.
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
So you found someone with a hot take. I've heard about a woman who eats fiberglass insulation but that wouldn't justify a blanket condemnation of women because they eat fiberglass insulation and that is effectively what you are trying to do.
Who has the hot take matters though, right silly goose?
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
You mean you agree with the 99.9%+ of people who aren't in favor of banning contraception? I salute the bravery it must have taken to voice such a stance. If you need treatment for the PTSD from all the blowback you are receiving, I hear they are making real strides in the medical community.
If the .9% has a say in law making and legislation then it matters much more than what the 99.9% who dont have a say think.
 


Top