Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?
seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?
Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.
would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists
I was not trying to denigrate rich white men in any way. My point is that any other demographic is on the losing end when it comes to typical republican policy
I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:
"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.
S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.
First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.
Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.
Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.
Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.
The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.
The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."
.....and the three stooges Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Egghead Biden, and Harry Reid are "in touch" as to how to run the most powerful country on the planet???
Hilarious.
I'm also doing you all a favor by not including the world's most notorious space cadet into that group of all-stars - Nancy Pelosi.
Bristow, VA - 5.13.10
East Troy, WI - 9.3.11
East Troy, WI - 9.4.11
Atlanta, GA - 9.22.12
Las Vegas, NV - 10.31.12 (EV)
Las Vegas, NV - 11.1.12 (EV)
Chicago, IL - 7.19.13
Dallas, TX - 11.15.13
Oklahoma City, OK - 11.16.13
Seattle, WA - 12.6.13
Lincoln, NE - 10.9.14
Moline, IL - 10.17.14
St. Paul, MN - 10.19.14
Milwaukee, WI - 10.20.14
New York, NY - 5.1.16
New York, NY - 5.2.16
Boston, MA - 8.5.16
Boston, MA - 8.7.16
Chicago, IL - 8.20.16
Me: "So, If President Obama was conceived in Idaho, then his parents decided to go to Kenya 3 months into the pregnancy. Let's also say he was born in Kenya, would he still be an American Citizen?"
Republican: "Of course not! He wasn't alive in America!"
Me: "Oh, so you're saying that the fetus wasn't a person?"
Me: "So, If President Obama was conceived in Idaho, then his parents decided to go to Kenya 3 months into the pregnancy. Let's also say he was born in Kenya, would he still be an American Citizen?"
Republican: "Of course not! He wasn't alive in America!"
Me: "Oh, so you're saying that the fetus wasn't a person?"
Me: "So, If President Obama was conceived in Idaho, then his parents decided to go to Kenya 3 months into the pregnancy. Let's also say he was born in Kenya, would he still be an American Citizen?"
Republican: "Of course not! He wasn't alive in America!"
Me: "Oh, so you're saying that the fetus wasn't a person?"
Repulican: "Ummmmmmmmm."
The rule is defined by where you are born, not when you are alive.
Me: "So, If President Obama was conceived in Idaho, then his parents decided to go to Kenya 3 months into the pregnancy. Let's also say he was born in Kenya, would he still be an American Citizen?"
Republican: "Of course not! He wasn't alive in America!"
Me: "Oh, so you're saying that the fetus wasn't a person?"
Repulican: "Ummmmmmmmm."
The rule is defined by where you are born, not when you are alive.
but many think people start to exist at conception, right?
but many think people start to exist at conception, right?
Many people think life starts at conception. Many people think life starts when the baby pokes out of mommy.
These illogical stances are required to support opinions that these people carry. I say pish-posh to either point of view.
:geek:
I think human life in the context of abortion starts when consciousness is possible, i.e. a functioning nervous system. The earliest that is possible in a fetus based on the functionality of neurons in the brain is around 20 weeks.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think human life in the context of abortion starts when consciousness is possible, i.e. a functioning nervous system. The earliest that is possible in a fetus based on the functionality of neurons in the brain is around 20 weeks.
That's about where I have it pegged as well. Somewhere between 20 - 24 weeks.
I think human life in the context of abortion starts when consciousness is possible, i.e. a functioning nervous system. The earliest that is possible in a fetus based on the functionality of neurons in the brain is around 20 weeks.
That's about where I have it pegged as well. Somewhere between 20 - 24 weeks.
I figure that if your idea of the sanctity of life goes earlier than that, you also have to stop harming plant life, let alone non-human animals. Bye bye food.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
but many think people start to exist at conception, right?
Many people think life starts at conception. Many people think life starts when the baby pokes out of mommy.
These illogical stances are required to support opinions that these people carry. I say pish-posh to either point of view.
:geek:
I think human life in the context of abortion starts when consciousness is possible, i.e. a functioning nervous system. The earliest that is possible in a fetus based on the functionality of neurons in the brain is around 20 weeks.
Life starts at conception, nothing else is logical. Some random point in between conception and birth make no sense. There has to be a moment that something goes from not alive to alive, how can that possibly be "around 20 weeks". That moment is clearly conception.
So is someone who has lived a normal life and due to say an accident become brain dead, are they no longer alive? Say the doctor comes in and says your spouse has the brain function of a 19 week old fetus, are they not alive?
There are single celled organisms on this planet that are considered alive, why do you not consider a single celled human to be alive?
Many people think life starts at conception. Many people think life starts when the baby pokes out of mommy.
These illogical stances are required to support opinions that these people carry. I say pish-posh to either point of view.
:geek:
I think human life in the context of abortion starts when consciousness is possible, i.e. a functioning nervous system. The earliest that is possible in a fetus based on the functionality of neurons in the brain is around 20 weeks.
Life starts at conception, nothing else is logical. Some random point in between conception and birth make no sense. There has to be a moment that something goes from not alive to alive, how can that possibly be "around 20 weeks". That moment is clearly conception.
So is someone who has lived a normal life and due to say an accident become brain dead, are they no longer alive? Say the doctor comes in and says your spouse has the brain function of a 19 week old fetus, are they not alive?
There are single celled organisms on this planet that are considered alive, why do you not consider a single celled human to be alive?
You don't seem to be reading what I'm posting very carefully. The way I worded my thoughts on it, I fully accounted for what you're saying.
So do you eat?
As for brain dead people... If my spouse were brain dead, I would absolutely want them to pull the plug. There is some kind of life there, but not one worth living. In the same vein, a 19 or less week old fetus of course has life... but not life that is more significant to me than that which the fish I ate for dinner had.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not going to give the GOP any credit whatsoever for how they vote on anything. But, here is the explanation from Republican House member Justin Amash, who is often compared to Ron Paul, for his vote against VAWA. Amash explains all of his votes every time he votes. This is from his FB page:
"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.
S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.
First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.
Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.
Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.
Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.
The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.
The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."
You don't seem to be reading what I'm posting very carefully. The way I worded my thoughts on it, I fully accounted for what you're saying.
So do you eat?
As for brain dead people... If my spouse were brain dead, I would absolutely want them to pull the plug. There is some kind of life there, but not one worth living. In the same vein, a 19 or less week old fetus of course has life... but not life that is more significant to me than that which the fish I ate for dinner had.
I don't think YOU are reading what YOU are posting very carefully, because you contradicted yourself. In your last post you said (I'm paraphasing) that a 19 week of fetus has no life, and in this post you said it does.
Your eating/fish argument doesn't really add anything to the dicussion, and honestly doesn't make sense in the context of our discussion of "when does life begin".
You don't seem to be reading what I'm posting very carefully. The way I worded my thoughts on it, I fully accounted for what you're saying.
So do you eat?
As for brain dead people... If my spouse were brain dead, I would absolutely want them to pull the plug. There is some kind of life there, but not one worth living. In the same vein, a 19 or less week old fetus of course has life... but not life that is more significant to me than that which the fish I ate for dinner had.
I don't think YOU are reading what YOU are posting very carefully, because you contradicted yourself. In your last post you said (I'm paraphasing) that a 19 week of fetus has no life, and in this post you said it does.
Your eating/fish argument doesn't really add anything to the dicussion, and honestly doesn't make sense in the context of our discussion of "when does life begin".
I said "I think human life in the context of abortion" starts at 20 weeks. That is completely different from what you're saying. OBVIOUSLY life exists down to single cell organisms. Since we kill those pretty much just by moving, I think talking about this in the context of when human life in the womb becomes something we need to protect by virtue of its development and viability is the whole point, don't you??
I think my fish comment is completely relevant, because a fetus without a functional nervous system is life that logically warrants no more protection than the life of a fish (even less so - fish and all the other animals we eat DO have functioning nervous systems).... not to say there isn't a difference emotionally. But that really isn't the point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
Of course... but unfortunately, that's not enough for a lot of people.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
Of course... but unfortunately, that's not enough for a lot of people.
But why debate when life begins if you agree? It makes no difference it is about choice
and the right to choose.
When you carry a child to term it really changes your perspective on life,
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
Of course... but unfortunately, that's not enough for a lot of people.
But why debate when life begins if you agree? It makes no difference it is about choice
and the right to choose.
No, it's about laws pertaining to abortion, which is why the debate persists.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
I was not trying to denigrate rich white men in any way. My point is that any other demographic is on the losing end when it comes to typical republican policy
If he was holding his nose and voting his pocketbook only
it's not derogatory. if someone said "old rich h*nkeys", then yes, we'd have a problem.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
138 Nay votes, all by republicans...
:shock:
:fp:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
come on jeb, you know the politically expedient move to make. your family has been doing it for generations.
i guess the "self deportation" idea failed in the 2012 election, so why would you support it again, even if it was for only 24 hours?? :fp:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"I voted no on S 47, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a 1994 law that, among other things, created new federal crimes to mirror crimes already on the books in every state pertaining to certain domestic violence offenses.
S 47 reauthorizes VAWA and also increases federal criminal penalties for certain types of assault, expands the federal definition of stalking and cyberstalking to include conduct that would be "reasonably expected to cause" emotional distress, and includes a provision granting Indian tribes some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. The bill also spends $3.86 billion over the next five years primarily on grants to local governments to address domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking—subjects over which the federal government has no general jurisdiction.
The Constitution does not permit Congress to pass criminal laws like the ones created under VAWA and expanded under this bill. It explicitly authorizes Congress to criminalize only a few activities, which relate to matters that are clearly federal in nature (counterfeiting, crimes on the high seas, treason). All other criminal activities are punishable at the state level. My home state of Michigan, like every other state, has criminal laws punishing domestic violence and sex offenses.
The Framers of the Constitution recognized the dangers of federalizing criminal law. The potential benefits of federalization—instant, consistent law throughout the country—are easily outweighed by the negative, unintended consequences and the threat to life and liberty that federalization poses.
First, a critical component of due process is that the accused not be tried for the same crime multiple times. With the federalization of crime, however, a person may be charged in both state court and federal court for essentially the same crime.
Second, as Congress encroaches on more areas of criminal law, budget-constrained state governments may be increasingly inclined to leave the prosecution of many criminal matters to the federal government. But there are substantial benefits to having competing, functional state laws rather than one federal law. The Constitution's approach encourages states to experiment with different systems—providing for more innovation and less risk than Congress's imposing one law on everyone.
Third, the more criminal laws the federal government must enforce, the more federal police officers it needs. This federal force is not nearly as accountable to local voters or taxpayers as are state and local police. Federal police take their orders from Washington, and they often have little connection to the communities in which they operate.
Finally, the primary mission of federal courts is to judge matters that are national in scope and not properly handled in state courts. With the increased federalization of crime, however, federal courts now spend most of their time and resources handling matters that traditionally are the purview of state courts. Consequently, the ability of federal courts to deal with federal matters in an efficient and effective manner has been diminished.
The Framers wrote the Constitution to protect against these dangers. When Congress ignores the Constitution, we harm our constituents in ways that may not be immediately apparent to the eager advocates of greater federal involvement.
The Constitution properly leaves the states the responsibility of defining and prosecuting most criminal activities, including crimes pertaining to domestic violence offenses. This bill continues and expands upon the inappropriate federalization of what are traditionally and appropriately state and local functions. The bill passed 286-138."
Sounds reasonable to me.
PLease get your terminology right....
Jeb Bush is a regressive and as such he CHANGED HIS MIND
Democrats aka progressives are the ones that FLIP FLOP
http://www.upworthy.com/a-politician-at ... him?c=upw1
Hilarious.
I'm also doing you all a favor by not including the world's most notorious space cadet into that group of all-stars - Nancy Pelosi.
East Troy, WI - 9.3.11
East Troy, WI - 9.4.11
Atlanta, GA - 9.22.12
Las Vegas, NV - 10.31.12 (EV)
Las Vegas, NV - 11.1.12 (EV)
Chicago, IL - 7.19.13
Dallas, TX - 11.15.13
Oklahoma City, OK - 11.16.13
Seattle, WA - 12.6.13
Lincoln, NE - 10.9.14
Moline, IL - 10.17.14
St. Paul, MN - 10.19.14
Milwaukee, WI - 10.20.14
New York, NY - 5.1.16
New York, NY - 5.2.16
Boston, MA - 8.5.16
Boston, MA - 8.7.16
Chicago, IL - 8.20.16
What a piece of shit
Republican: "Of course not! He wasn't alive in America!"
Me: "Oh, so you're saying that the fetus wasn't a person?"
Repulican: "Ummmmmmmmm."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
but many think people start to exist at conception, right?
These illogical stances are required to support opinions that these people carry. I say pish-posh to either point of view.
:geek:
Life starts at conception, nothing else is logical. Some random point in between conception and birth make no sense. There has to be a moment that something goes from not alive to alive, how can that possibly be "around 20 weeks". That moment is clearly conception.
So is someone who has lived a normal life and due to say an accident become brain dead, are they no longer alive? Say the doctor comes in and says your spouse has the brain function of a 19 week old fetus, are they not alive?
There are single celled organisms on this planet that are considered alive, why do you not consider a single celled human to be alive?
So do you eat?
As for brain dead people... If my spouse were brain dead, I would absolutely want them to pull the plug. There is some kind of life there, but not one worth living. In the same vein, a 19 or less week old fetus of course has life... but not life that is more significant to me than that which the fish I ate for dinner had.
I don't think YOU are reading what YOU are posting very carefully, because you contradicted yourself. In your last post you said (I'm paraphasing) that a 19 week of fetus has no life, and in this post you said it does.
Your eating/fish argument doesn't really add anything to the dicussion, and honestly doesn't make sense in the context of our discussion of "when does life begin".
I think my fish comment is completely relevant, because a fetus without a functional nervous system is life that logically warrants no more protection than the life of a fish (even less so - fish and all the other animals we eat DO have functioning nervous systems).... not to say there isn't a difference emotionally. But that really isn't the point.
on abortion, but not necessarily on the right to choose. For me this is the only
logical debate for abortion... choice.
and the right to choose.