You are not logged in.
Ukraine is now invading / operating within Russia. I zero sympathy for the Russian government, but ultimately this isn't going to end the way we in the West think it should. It's going to get very ugly, very fast. We already have one Sun. We don't need another one here on Earth. Maybe none of Russia's nukes actually work, but what if some do? Everyone had better hope and pray that is the case.
I recently attempted to go to the Harris / Walz website. The first search result I get, regardless of what I try to search for, is "ActBlue", which is a so-called super pac asking for money. I had to get modestly creative to "fool" Google, but I did eventually find their actual website.
I recently attempted to go to the Trump / Vance website as well. That one at least comes up, but also asking for money like all the rest. There's at least some platform and policy positions here. I still have no clue what the Harris / Walz platform is offering up to the American people, in writing.
2024 GOP PLATFORM MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
It's a 16 page document expressing the policies which President Trump wishes to pursue.
Robert F. Kennnedy Jr 2024 Presidential Election Campaign - Policy Positions
It's not an actual document, but good enough for government work.
Where in the heck are all the policy positions for Vice President Kamala Harris? Is that supposed to be a big secret? A major political party, our Democrat Party, has expressed no public policy positions in writing for their 2024 Presidential candidate. Does everyone in the Democrat Party "simply know" what they're voting for? Does that not bother anyone who is a Democrat? There are written-down policies for our 2024 Republican and Independent Presidential candidates. The Democrats hold the Presidency right now. Posting their policy positions would at least tell the people what they stand for.
Offline
Meanwhile, Israel, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah are all unloading on each other. It's a "flying metal" competition. I've no idea if Turkey is involved yet, but if they are, then there's going to be a much wider war in the Middle East.
Offline
Tonight, Elon Musk is interviewing President Trump live on X. Rather than the usual antagonistic "gotchas" from radical leftists in media, he's talking to him like any normal person and trying to figure out what he wants to do and what his policies will be.
Border - Sending the criminals back to the countries that foist them upon the United States due to President Biden's open border policies
Energy - EVs, oil, solar, and nuclear energy
Economics - Manufacturing, jobs, inflation, reducing government spending, stop starting wars, stop antagonizing other countries
Climate Change - What reasonable things should be done about it
Edit:
Now they're talking about space exploration efforts.
Last edited by kbd512 (2024-08-12 20:20:25)
Offline
I have only watched part of it so far. Purely on the topic of space colonisation, this is clearly an alliance of enormous significance. Trump has ambitions for reindustrialising America. Musk is the single most important player for that goal and his main passion is colonising Mars. If he can persuade the president to get behind that goal, then all our hopes and dreams of building a space faring civilisation look a lot closer to reality.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-13 05:52:10)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Calliban,
The Democrats want to de-industrialize America while also bringing millions of people here illegally by thumbing their nose at our existing immigration laws, because their donor class wants a "new generation" of serfs / slaves to work for them, without calling it slavery, while subjecting those poor illegals to the same worst aspects of their greed and lust for power that they subject their fellow Americans to. They keep promising citizenship to these illegals, yet never deliver it, even when they control both houses of Congress and the White House. If their intent is not to make the illegals citizens, which is self-evident by their failure to make them citizens, then there's no path forward for them in America that doesn't ultimately end with jail or deportation, presuming we follow any of our other laws. Democrats think laws are for other people they don't like, not them. When the law is applied to them, they throw tantrums or claim racism, but that is the only way these bratty self-destructive "kid-dults" are ever brought to heel.
Notice how all the proposed mines and Keystone XL Pipeline were rejected outright by the Biden Administration?
Those were "shovel ready jobs" that their own Democrat voters could perform (working class unionized labor), yet they deny them jobs because the anti-humanist nutwhacks in their coalition would rather see their own people starve and freeze to death than use any form energy, "green" or otherwise, to prosper. It's repulsive and it needs to stop. I want Democrats to go back to what they were in the 1970s, before they became totally captured by monied special interest groups who only know how to destroy, and do nothing else except lining their own pockets.
Regardless of what Democrats falsely claim to the contrary, that is what they're actually doing, while paying lip service to the idea of caring about the American people, or at least the interests of their own voters, which they clearly don't, else they wouldn't subject poor people from other countries to their horror show that America has become under their psychopathic lemmingship.
That's why I ignore their blatantly false accusations of hating immigrants or being racist or any of their other baseless personal attacks which are only bad-faith attempts to avert public attention away from their obscenely criminal behavior. Anything they accuse the other side of is something they're actively doing to our people. Making everything about race or gender or politics is a way to "pick an issue, fix it, and polarize it", taken from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". If they accuse the Republicans of hating the Jews, it's to avert attention away from the fact that the radical left's own "work product" (the growing masses of brainwashed lunatics with degrees in anti-sociology or gender studies or lesbian interpretive dance), are busily chanting "death to the Jews" or "from the river to the sea" or "punch a Jew" or all the other violent and hate-filled extremism they exhibit towards anyone that their cult has determined is "not them". Naturally, the cult members are the only people who don't know they're part of a cult.
If it was truly a cult of peaceniks, then America would be none the worse for wear. Unfortunately, they're busily starting new wars and undermining the foundations of civilized society. I guess they ran out of arguments for their various incompatible causes and/or new issues to polarize, but I'm sure they'll think of something.
I simply can't abide by their brand of insanity. Every time our political left has their next identity crisis, largely driven by the fact that they're a coalition of voters don't share very many common interests, they start shredding the fabric of American society. The political right doesn't feel the need to reinvent itself every time their next lie falls flat on its face. Both parties tell lies, but some lies are more destructive than others. Any lie that undermines the fundamentals of human civilization cannot go unchallenged. The left wouldn't have incessant identity crises if they actually decided that they stood for something, and then focused on implementing policies to deliver what they claim they want. They can't do that because by the next election cycle it's apparent to at least half the country that the cult has become "more culty" and less "we stand for this / that / the other" than they were when they took office. Apart from maintaining their own power, Democrats don't actually agree on what they believe, which is why you have wanton destruction with no building of anything new when they gain power. They spent $392B on "climate change action". There are not $392B worth of new "green" power plants, regardless of definition. There's only $392B in tax money missing from the federal government's IOU stack, and nothing else.
The right has had three core issues:
1. Articulating their messaging to prospective voters
2. Registering and motivating prospective voters to show up to the polls to vote
3. An unwillingness to stand up for what they believe in on the part of their so-called leadership, because most of what they want is to be left alone (something the political left is unwilling and unable to do, because incessantly messing with other people is an inseparable part of their modus operandi)
1. Jobs that pay a wage sufficient for family formation for working class people (no pandering to the poor or the rich or special interests groups with dumb ideas and no accountability for results- help the poor become middle class while remaining ambivalent rather than antagonistic towards the rich; economic success is commendable, but impoverishing large numbers of people to do that is not)
* Work-centric and family-centric policies, not anti-social and anti-humanist self-destruction masquerading as "caring" about other people
* Promote the idea that the optimal living situation for children is a two-parent household, rather than "marrying" women to our government by incentivizing them to engage in promiscuous behavior and/or divorcing their husbands to collect cash and prizes from the person doing the work to provide for them and the kids (by their own actions, far too many women are either terrible judges of character when it comes to who they choose to sleep with and marry, or they're terrible at placing the well-being of their own children above their own "happiness"- something that changes from moment-to-moment)
* Work with rather than against the various religious groups who take care of each other and their communities (millions upon millions of people would be dead following natural disasters or famine or war or whatever, were it not for charitable organizations such as the Catholic Church; whatever my other misgivings about how they operate happen to be, or religion in general, I can still recognize that their people do good works for the express benefit of their fellow citizens)
2. Use domestic energy, natural resources, and labor to avoid doing business with countries that hate America
* Drill for our own oil and gas, because otherwise it has to be imported from other countries, burning even more oil to do that, and mostly ignoring our own environmental regulations
* Work on a truly diverse portfolio of alternative energy schemes which could be much less costly than trying to use electricity for everything, due to the wild materials-based inefficiencies associated with electrical power generation and distribution
* Develop a publicly accepted nuclear energy source which we won't permit to be endlessly lied about in our mass media (China Syndrome and other similarly idiotic nonsense repeated by people too ignorant to speak about energy)
* Add transportation options for people, rather than government mandates (if people can make EVs work in their personal lives, then they will become a de-facto standard, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is the exact right solution for transport, because the customers and car makers arrived at something that works for them)
3. The Defense Department is used for clear-cut cases of self-defense, rather than what the previous War Department was used for, which was starting wars (if anyone attacks us, then we bomb them right off the map and into the afterlife without exception, but otherwise we leave you to your own devices and don't pander to the economic interests of our multi-national corporations- they do business overseas at their own risk)
* No more cost-plus or winner-take-all contracting
* No more weapons for people who refuse to pay for their own defense (something of tangible value is traded, or we don't hand over weapons that the American tax payer are ultimately on the hook for, regardless of all the blather to the contrary)
* No more pointless development programs that never increase true combat capability:
The absurdity that is the Ford class- an aircraft carrier which can theoretically fly 20 to 40 more sorties per day compared to the carriers it replaced, but never has and never will fly more sorties because the Navy has no money left to put enough jets on the ship to use that capability
Independence and Freedom classes- littoral combat ships designed to "fight pirates and terrorists" (not peer-level nation-states with real naval power)
USS Constellation- an existing frigate design that is not an existing frigate design
Future Air Dominance fighter- because past, present, and future air dominance will be decided by who actually has functional combat jets to fly, not how much money was sunk into each fighter jet
Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, Stryker, and similarly asinine Tonka Trucks for little boys- "high mobility" wheeled infantry fighting vehicles that aren't highly mobile, except on paved roads, which is where troops go to get ambushed and killed by poorly equipped terrorists with AKs and RPGs, since the Derpistanis who designed such vehicles were never forced to fight for their lives in what they designed and foisted upon unsuspecting mechanized infantry troops who were falsely told they were getting "game changer" weapon systems (well, the game was "changed" by increasing how many people got killed
M-10 Booker "Mobile Protected Firepower"- a light tank that is not light (as heavy as the first generation M1 Abrams MBT), nor is it well-protected against modern anti-tank weapons
There's a very long list of very dumb yet very expensive ideas which were never tested against realistic operating conditions. A tank, or vehicle that looks just like any other tank, regardless of what the military calls it, will eventually be forced to fight other tanks, period, because that is how combat actually works. You use a series of asymmetric counter-weapons, better tactics, and better training to win. Better technology can and often does help, but only to a point. We've gone broke trying to develop and field "nazi-esque wunder waffe" which are still quite vulnerable to counterpart weapon systems fielded by our adversaries. We used to understand what General Lee clearly understood, "He who gets there with the firstest and the mostest, wins!" We're not going to fight dudes with AKs using sticks and stones, but that's not what we're talking about doing. We're talking about the general utility of an artillery piece that shoots 50 miles in comparison the enemy's 25 mile artillery piece, but at 50 miles it cannot reliably hit the broadside of a football field after 50 shells have been sent downrange. That's a dumb capability to have, even if your enemy claims they have it. We know full well they don't, because physics is involved, and there are no magical ways to overcome basic physics, except with absurd amounts of money. If you need to shoot 50 miles, then you're talking about something only a missile does with repeatable accuracy, and only at a much greater cost than an artillery shell.
We have Standard Missiles strapped to Super Hornets now. The problem is that the Super Hornet isn't big enough to also strap an AEGIS Combat System to it, to guide said long range air defense missile all the way to the target at its maximum range. It's a theoretically great capability to have, but what are you going to shoot it at without the fancy computer-controlled radar targeting system that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer has mounted to its superstructure? Why did we "want that"? Russia and China claimed to have a long range air-to-air missile operational. What do we know about their claims? All of them are highly exaggerated, any testing they did was highly scripted, and their practical demonstrated capability to do that in combat conditions is almost non-existent. S-400 can theoretically shoot down an aircraft 500km away due to the kinematics of the air defense missiles it launches. Can it stop a $1,000 Ukrainian FPV drone with a RPG strapped to it from obliterating the radar and missile launcher? Apparently not, based upon the drone footage. Well then, that wasn't a broadly useful capability to have, now was it? All counters are asymmetric in nature. Enemy puts a multi-million dollar missile system to "defend the skies" around their air base? You send a special forces guy with a backpack-carried FPV drone to go blast it for the cost of a few RPGs. Keep the system if you think it's useful in other ways, but accept it's not survivable against a determined enemy, so maybe you spend money on things other than the most glamorous and expensive "kill toys" imaginable. The moral of the story is that sheer numbers and asymmetric tactics win battles and logistics wins wars.
4. The administrative and welfare state needs to be dismantled, piece-by-piece, so that there is no large and burdensome centralized government to either grant every wish, regardless of how absurd, nor can it take everything away from you (we want government out of our personal lives and all power not specifically delegated to the federal government gets returned to the individual states- so if you don't like the laws in one state, then move on to the next)
* Abortion - no part of our law or Constitution guarantees your right to kill your own child, but if your state hates accountability, then by all means, go live there
* Health Care - see above (another thing Americans are now obligated to pay for, not only for themselves but all others, that is found nowhere in the Constitution)
* Guns - I think California should be allowed to ban all guns if that is what they want (and hopefully all the criminals move there to prey upon the idiots who voted for that)
* Bathrooms - Anyone can claim to be anything they wish, but regardless of their personal beliefs, the state they live in can either recognize basic biological differences between men and women, because they believe in biology (part of science), or that they believe whatever nonsense someone makes up in their head, so this is yet another issue that should be decided at the state level
5. Lawful authority will not be subverted or the law ignored for political gain
* Border - The law is what it is, so either change the law or enforce it
* Drugs - I don't agree with legalizing them because the evidence about the social problems they cause is crystal clear, but if my fellow Americans vote that into law, then I will accept the results of their vote
* Violent Crime - Assault, rape, robbery, murder - either we're going to agree to prosecute these crimes at every level, with no special regard to race or immigration status or any other consideration besides the facts of the case, or we're not going to have a country very long
Offline
Even "the kids" know something is wrong:
Reality Based. - Society Is Broken And There Will Be a REVOLUTION! | @WhatifAltHist
This guy is on the left, definitely not a fan of President Trump, so all you leftists listen to someone on "your side", whatever that is, who is both educated by the Ivory Tower, and is at least honest enough to admit that there is a serious problem:
Triggernometry - We're Heading for Civilisational Collapse - Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt
Listen to some people who do actual thinking about what's happening, and hopefully learn something from them so you don't have to learn the lesson from the School of Hard Knocks.
Offline
This illustrates how much more robust the protections for freedom are in the US compared to the UK.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iAGlE39FKLg
The Democrats are at least constrained by the US constitution. Imagine a situation where there were no constitutional protections and these people were in charge? That is exactly the situation in the UK. The party of government holds effectively arbitrary power that it wields to crush any little person that stands against them. There is no constitution to protect you. Britons are every bit as enslaved as the Chinese.
In the UK it is very easy to be criminalised and jailed for an off hand comment on social media. Starmer has assigned thousands of police officers to scour social media for signs of dissent. We are now ruled by an evil man who openly wishes to destroy the English people and replace them with an imported islamic population. He has opened the borders and has removed all measures designed to limit mass immigration. Demonstrating against this in any way is considered to be insurrection and many people are now rotting in jail for 'civil disorder' or simply saying the wrong thing on social media. Genuine insurrection is impossible, because the populace is unarmed. The US constitution protects the right to bare arms precisely to protect against the sort of tyrannical government that exists in the UK.
This vile man will not easily be removed from power and he will do enormous damage every day until he is. I really hope that Donald Trump wins in the US in November. Perhaps he can do something to help us. Maybe he can classify the UK a rogue state?
Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-14 05:13:59)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Richard Medhurst discusses being arrested and detained by the Terror Police, the UK government's secret police force.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ … ed-tyranny
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
"We all watched the television coverage of just yesterday, and that's what we've seen and we haven't seen yet. And think about all the things that we've yet to still see, and you know just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It's just limited to what we've seen." - Kamala Harris
That's a verbatim quote from Vice President Harris, which was recorded on national television.
I'm starting to think that Democrat politicians are making fun of their own voters, which means they don't respect the people who are voting for them. I cannot possibly understand how a Democrat's brain interprets that, but I know that I would be pretty upset if one of my politicians was literally laughing at us while our media asked a serious and consequential question, such as "Mrs President, we have a war going on right now in Ukraine. What are our conditions for winning or suing for peace?" I do not expect word salad followed by cackling. That is precisely why Hillary Clinton was rejected by the American people.
Something I did not know, but found out the other day from her former staffers who spoke out, is that Kamala Harris is purported to be a drunkard and ill-prepared for her public speaking engagements, because she refuses to work with her staff in pregame "cram sessions" the day or week before the big public test, the way President Clinton did. President Biden can't speak because his brain is fried. Vice President Harris cannot speak by choice. If she laid off the booze and showed up ready to work with her staff, then I think her staff could do their jobs.
I expect, at a minimum, that the person responsible for speaking to our allies and adversaries has studied the cliff notes handed to them in the morning briefing sessions, and at least "knows" what the CIA has put in front of them, so that "The Leader of the Free World" doesn't look like a total moron in public.
Edit:
And... That's the problem with going off of memory of what a stupid person said. I didn't fully capture the "essence of stupidity" that is Kamala Harris:
"We all watched the television coverage of just yesterday. That's on top of everything else that we know and don't know yet, based on what we've just been able to see and because we've seen it or not doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but just limited to what we have seen." - Kamala Harris
Apologies for the misquote, but I didn't feel like listening to her stupidity again, because I feel as though anyone who listens to her loses IQ points.
Here you go. You can watch her yourself and lose some of your own brain cells trying to decipher whatever she's on about:
Her word salads are just incoherent.
Last edited by kbd512 (2024-08-22 10:13:30)
Offline
I expect, at a minimum, that the person responsible for speaking to our allies and adversaries has studied the cliff notes handed to them in the morning briefing sessions, and at least "knows" what the CIA has put in front of them, so that "The Leader of the Free World" doesn't look like a total moron in public.
HAHAHA. You mean the guy that says " info brief? fuck that. or you mean the guy that looked at the sun during the eclipse? oh, they guy that drew the weather impact on the map not grounded in reality?
Are you so broken you dont see?
Offline
Meanwhile, kbd512, mr texas, says Trump. That's your guy, right or wrong, right? You don't wan't Harris. Cool. So Trump. So 15 week or less abortion. So maybe that is national, 15 eek abortion, so cool, that's what you support. And then we go for no illegal immigraation exepcept for what the software developers needs and farms. Unless they are too non-foreign, then we say no.
Offline
clark,
In a free society, other people are allowed to state opinions you disagree with in public. If that irks you, good. If you can learn to make your peace with that, equally good.
The Supreme Court of the United States says the abortion issue is going back to the states. President Trump has stated his administration will not pursue a national abortion ban. Many Democrats have lied about that fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. Each state gets to decide what their own abortion policy will be. People who don't like their state's abortion policy are free to move to a different state. Californians and New Yorkers do that on the regular after they decide they don't like the results of the tax and spend policies of the Democrats they voted for.
Is abortion some sort of tacit admission that Democrats shouldn't be anywhere near children, because they have low impulse control, poor planning and organizational skills, and no ability to consider anything or anyone else beyond what they want at the very moment they want it?
For whatever strange reason, half of us are trying to prevent the other half from removing the mere possibility of them and their ideology having a future.
I would greatly appreciate it if everyone who ran our Federal government showed some kind of deference to my wife's sister, who has patiently waited her turn in line to immigrate to the United States from Viet Nam, for the past 20 years. Sadly, it would seem our Democrats don't respect our immigration laws. When Democrats last controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, under President Obama (Democrat), they opted not to change our immigration laws to be more to their liking. Nobody but Democrats stopped Democrats from doing that. They could've made unlimited immigration perfectly legal, but they decided not to do that.
Rather than whine about President Trump enforcing our nation's immigration laws, why don't Democrats whine to their fellow Democrats about the fact that the Democrats didn't change America's immigration laws when Democrats had all the power required to do so?
Offline
I am always puzzled by left-leaning women who are zealous for abortion. Most sane women are protective of babies. It is genetically programmed into them. Abortion is the killing of babies, literally by dismembering them alive. That is premeditated murder by any sensible definition. It is a horribly ugly thing, probably the ugliest thing most people can imagine. The best that can be said for it is that sometimes it is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. There are situations where it has to be an option that is available because real life is a moral compromise. But who in their right mind would want to see it liberally available as a form of post-coital contraception for a child that is inconvenient? That is just wrong. And I don't undedstand how anyone cannot see that it is wrong.
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
Hey Calliban, you will be hard pressed to find anyone, especially women, zealous for "abortion". One of my previous jobs, ages ago, was helping to evaluate women who needed to seek an abortion. I was an 18 yr male, centuries ago, asking about their last period, using a little wheel chart to calculate gestational age, asking about number of pregnancies, number of prior abortions, and then handing out paper on their medical options. I encountered women, my age, younger, and often times older with several kids in tow. All of them, every single one, was dealing with a huge emotional burden. None of them viewed what they were doing as some kind of flippant birth control. All of them were embarrassed and dealing with something that was challenging.
Unless you've dealt with this choice personally, you really don't understand what goes into it. Unless you've faced people who have had to make this kind of choice, your ivory tower opinions are out of touch and condescending.
No one is "pro abortion". That's a stupid marketing gimmick and shame on anyone that feeds it. Everyone should be pro-women and pro-freedom. Women are not chattel. Their bodies are their own, their choices their own, and the weight of the decisions they sometimes have to make, solely their own. You and I have no right or place to impinge on their choices for their own body.
Save any moral equivocating. It's not your body, you don't get a say.
Offline
Hey Kbd512,
Yes Trump has stated he opposes a national abortion ban, but supports a national 15 week abortion ban. So I guess, to your point he doesn't support a "ban" as some view it, but does support a "limit" that effectively is a ban. You have kids so you know how discovery works from conception to realization. And while State's rights and local decision discretion is a good philosophy in most cases, basic human or citizen rights isn't one of them. US citizens should have some basic universal rights across all states, like voting, like freedom of speech, and like autonomy of your own body. And this is not even opening up the rabbit hole of having different medical rules, which is biology and science based, differing from state to state.
"Is abortion some sort of tacit admission that Democrats shouldn't be anywhere near children, because they have low impulse control, poor planning and organizational skills, and no ability to consider anything or anyone else beyond what they want at the very moment they want it?"
You proud of that rhetorical question? If I wrote it, I would be proud, but I'm a troll. So "slow clap", congrats. Look at you elevating the conversation by debasing yourself. I mean, it's not like the democrats can be like President Trump, and proudly proclaim that he can "grab them by the pu**y!". So, i guess the children will be safe, but lock up your b*tches, right kbd512?
"I would greatly appreciate it if everyone who ran our Federal government showed some kind of deference to my wife's sister, who has patiently waited her turn in line to immigrate to the United States from Viet Nam, for the past 20 years. "
Well, Trump has spoken out against chain immigration and he has spoken publicly about wanting immigration from "nice" countries, such as Norway, Sweden, or Switzerland. Not sure if Vietnam meets either profile.
Look, both parties suck on immigration and both parties use it as a way to demonize or leverage their base. The only material difference is that Trump is the one saying he is going to put them all into an internment camp. Do with that what you will. Hope your sister in law finds a path here!
Offline
Hey Calliban, you will be hard pressed to find anyone, especially women, zealous for "abortion". One of my previous jobs, ages ago, was helping to evaluate women who needed to seek an abortion. I was an 18 yr male, centuries ago, asking about their last period, using a little wheel chart to calculate gestational age, asking about number of pregnancies, number of prior abortions, and then handing out paper on their medical options. I encountered women, my age, younger, and often times older with several kids in tow. All of them, every single one, was dealing with a huge emotional burden. None of them viewed what they were doing as some kind of flippant birth control. All of them were embarrassed and dealing with something that was challenging.
Unless you've dealt with this choice personally, you really don't understand what goes into it. Unless you've faced people who have had to make this kind of choice, your ivory tower opinions are out of touch and condescending.
No one is "pro abortion". That's a stupid marketing gimmick and shame on anyone that feeds it. Everyone should be pro-women and pro-freedom. Women are not chattel. Their bodies are their own, their choices their own, and the weight of the decisions they sometimes have to make, solely their own. You and I have no right or place to impinge on their choices for their own body.
Save any moral equivocating. It's not your body, you don't get a say.
Some people are genuinely pro-abortion. One of my wifes friends has had several. The problem is that there are two bodies at stake and there is a tendancy to view one of them as some sort of tumour. That is where the conflict arises. Few people object to women having bodily autonomy. But what happens when it isn't just her body at stake? You may notice that no one is even talking about any other form of bodily autonomy.
The solution to this problem is strict social taboos against extra-marital sex. People should not copulate unless they are in a position to deal with the consequences. Our ancestors understood that. Tribal societies still understand that. We seem to have lost that wisdom.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-27 01:12:48)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
clark,
Women already do have bodily autonomy. Women have the right to refuse to have sex with anyone, for any reason. I sincerely wish more women would exercise their right to not have sex with anyone they're not married to and also willing to have children with. I fully support the right of all women to not have sex with anyone they're not also willing to have children with. That truly would make abortion a non-issue.
As far as pride goes, I would be a lot more proud if you started acting like a grown man who is fully capable of reading / listening to differences of opinion without angry emotional outbursts over our differences.
I honestly don't know if my wife's sister qualifies as "chain migration" or not. My wife immigrated to America legally after the Viet Nam War.
President Trump has stated he's going to deport everyone who came here illegally. The internment camps are a machination of President Obama, but I doubt you paid much attention when it was a Democrat putting illegals into internment camps. Apart from the letter next to the name of the guy in office, I don't think much else actually changed.
How about some more substantive arguments? That'd be a nice change of pace.
Offline
So here we have Calliban, girls need to keep their legs closed. Look, tiny little man, women can hump whomever they want. Your diminutive world view is sad. If people want to have sex, your religion is not a reason that should presume how they behave afterwards. You want religious reasons to dictate behavior then you invite all religions. Don't be stupid. you have some weird fetish, but you dont need to push it here.
Offline
clark,
Women already do have bodily autonomy. Women have the right to refuse to have sex with anyone, for any reason. I sincerely wish more women would exercise their right to not have sex with anyone they're not married to and also willing to have children with. I fully support the right of all women to not have sex with anyone they're not also willing to have children with. That truly would make abortion a non-issue.
As far as pride goes, I would be a lot more proud if you started acting like a grown man who is fully capable of reading / listening to differences of opinion without angry emotional outbursts over our differences.
I honestly don't know if my wife's sister qualifies as "chain migration" or not. My wife immigrated to America legally after the Viet Nam War.
President Trump has stated he's going to deport everyone who came here illegally. The internment camps are a machination of President Obama, but I doubt you paid much attention when it was a Democrat putting illegals into internment camps. Apart from the letter next to the name of the guy in office, I don't think much else actually changed.
How about some more substantive arguments? That'd be a nice change of pace.
They have bodily autonomy? Ask your wife. Women, in theory have the right to refuse sex, but, like a dipsh*t male, you don't realize that they don't. Wake up. Women live, constantly, in fear. Women live, constantly, worrying about the fact that 50% of the population can wreck them. You are a moron if you dont understand that women are minority and living under the aggression of men.
the abortion argument is now in a place where instance of rape or incest still require the mother take the fetus to term. as a man, you want someone else telling you to take a thing to term, because "god"? exactly.
Offline
clark,
Nobody forced my wife to date me, to marry me, nor to sleep with me. She did all of that by choice. Stop infantilizing half the people on the planet. Women have agency, just as men do. I'm quite certain that 50% of the men and women out there could "wreck me", by pure statistical probability. Someone else will always be stronger, faster, smarter, or simply more violent than you are. Anyone who doesn't believe that must not be very observant. Pardon me if I don't cower in fear at the mere fact that someone could hurt me if they really wanted to. Part of being an adult is not allowing fear or other emotions to control you.
Offline
So here we have Calliban, girls need to keep their legs closed. Look, tiny little man, women can hump whomever they want. Your diminutive world view is sad. If people want to have sex, your religion is not a reason that should presume how they behave afterwards. You want religious reasons to dictate behavior then you invite all religions. Don't be stupid. you have some weird fetish, but you dont need to push it here.
Clark, what I propose is the only option that preserves complete bodily freedom, whilst avoiding the need to murder babies. It is called self-control. It means not creating a life until you are capable of taking complete responsibility for it. It means agreeing to respect a due process in living one's life. Before one can have sex, one needs to be married. One cannot be married, until one is capable of financially supporting a family. Getting into that position then becomes something that men can strive for.
This needs to be taught to people. It needs to be enforced by the law and punitive social codes that ostracise people that don't comply. It must apply to men as much as it applies to women. And the shame of extra-marital pregnancy should fall equally on the shoulders of both parties. This arrangement protects women from being caught in a situation that requires them to make horiffic choices. And it is an arrangement that we more or less had until the 1960s. It didn't please everyone. It could be cruel to those that were too weak to comply or those that were taken advantage of. The sort of religiously organised communities that we had back then were often stiffling and judgemental places to live in. But this arrangement was designed to protect people from harm, even if it limited their choices. Sixty years ago, birth outside of marriage was comparatively rare. Abortion was something used rarely, if a woman had suffered rape or was too weak to survive childbirth. Back then we had a sane society that protected women. Men were taught that their role was to be protector and provider. And most men lived up to that. People generally were more bound by duty and were taught to put duty above hedonistic pleasures. That always has to be a compromise, but people seem to failing now more than they ever have before. I want to see a return to a sane society.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-28 04:55:24)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline
clark,
Nobody forced my wife to date me, to marry me, nor to sleep with me. She did all of that by choice. Stop infantilizing half the people on the planet. Women have agency, just as men do. I'm quite certain that 50% of the men and women out there could "wreck me", by pure statistical probability. Someone else will always be stronger, faster, smarter, or simply more violent than you are. Anyone who doesn't believe that must not be very observant. Pardon me if I don't cower in fear at the mere fact that someone could hurt me if they really wanted to. Part of being an adult is not allowing fear or other emotions to control you.
Stop being obtuse. Or do you really think your one personal data point somehow translates to the lived reality for the majority of women? Are you not paying attention or do you actively ignore anything that violates your world view?
Talk to some women. Actually listen. Do you walk out to your car at night with your keys held as a weapon? They do. Do you consider the real scenerio that your drink will be spiked if you don't keep eyes on it? They do. Do you consider if people can hear you scream for help if you find yourself alone in a room with someone else? They do.
And no, as a man, you don't worry about these things. I don't because I don't have to. We don't because even though there are people stronger and faster than us, we are not targets. Women are.
"Part of being an adult". What a sad statement from you. You are better than that. Be a grown up.
Offline
clark wrote:So here we have Calliban, girls need to keep their legs closed. Look, tiny little man, women can hump whomever they want. Your diminutive world view is sad. If people want to have sex, your religion is not a reason that should presume how they behave afterwards. You want religious reasons to dictate behavior then you invite all religions. Don't be stupid. you have some weird fetish, but you dont need to push it here.
Clark, what I propose is the only option that preserves complete bodily freedom, whilst avoiding the need to murder babies. It is called self-control. It means not creating a life until you are capable of taking complete responsibility for it. It means agreeing to respect a due process in living one's life. Before one can have sex, one needs to be married. One cannot be married, until one is capable of financially supporting a family. Getting into that position then becomes something that men can strive for.
This needs to be taught to people. It needs to be enforced by the law and punitive social codes that ostracise people that don't comply. It must apply to men as much as it applies to women. And the shame of extra-marital pregnancy should fall equally on the shoulders of both parties. This arrangement protects women from being caught in a situation that requires them to make horiffic choices. And it is an arrangement that we more or less had until the 1960s. It didn't please everyone. It could be cruel to those that were too weak to comply or those that were taken advantage of. The sort of religiously organised communities that we had back then were often stiffling and judgemental places to live in. But this arrangement was designed to protect people from harm, even if it limited their choices. Sixty years ago, birth outside of marriage was comparatively rare. Abortion was something used rarely, if a woman had suffered rape or was too weak to survive childbirth. Back then we had a sane society that protected women. Men were taught that their role was to be protector and provider. And most men lived up to that. People generally were more bound by duty and were taught to put duty above hedonistic pleasures. That always has to be a compromise, but people seem to failing now more than they ever have before. I want to see a return to a sane society.
What you propose is a return to repression. You propose this on a message board about people colonizing Mars, the future. You are a half twit and your out dated views belong in the basement in which they were written from.
And 60 years ago, in America, everyone was doing coke and f*cking. Society didn't protect women- that's a fantasy born out of your midnight fapping. Men were not held accountable for victimizing women. We have entire generations of mothers, sisters and colleagues all attesting to this.
Spend more of your time living your own life than pontificating on how others should better live their own lives.
Offline
clark,
Your "go ask your wife if she's scared of X / Y / Z" comment makes me think you actually believe I don't talk to or listen to my own wife. I attempted to teach her what I know about convincing other people to go away and leave her alone. She told me she wasn't interested, because "that's what she has me for". She's very far from the only woman with that attitude towards protecting herself from violence.
My "one data point"? I used to teach self defense classes. Many of my students were women. Many of them took a class or two and somehow thought they magically became kung-fu fighters. Half of what I attempted to teach them clearly went in one ear and right out the other, whether I was teaching men or women. The older ones were much better in that regard. What did I learn from my own students? Regardless of what you think about your teaching abilities or knowledge, or even demonstrated fighting skills from real street fights without any silly rules, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Do I walk to my car holding my keys as a weapon?
No. That's painfully dumb if you know anything at all about real violence, especially when drugs are involved. That's why my fellow conservatives fought tooth and nail to get The Second Amendment respected as the basis of Constitutional law. We actually care enough about other people, and not in a performative theatrical way that our leftists pretend to care about them, who might otherwise be the next violent crime statistic, to level any force disparity to the extent that we can. Thanks to our efforts, I can just as easily carry a 9mm pistol and knife with me. I recommend that all of my students do the same. In a real fight without any rules, you can get seriously injured or killed, even if you somehow manage to knock down all of your attackers. This is something you learn, or at least I "learned" (however painfully), when for example you piss off 3 members of a Mexican street gang.
Do I worry about someone spiking my drink?
I was fortunate enough to have real friends while I was in the Navy, so that only happened to me one time, but they saw what the woman did, dumped my drink out, and told me what happened after I finished taking a piss. After that happened, I took my drink with me or finished it, so I never had that problem again. We've all been young and dumb at least once in our lives. Luckily, because of my friends, I didn't end up in a back alley missing a kidney or two. Men are very far from the only ones who both can and will do violence against other people.
Do I worry about someone else being able to hear me scream?
These days the younger generation wouldn't do anything except maybe take out their cell phones to record it, so I definitely don't need to worry about that, nor does anyone else, sadly.
If you actually believe the nonsense you just spouted off, then you're the one being obtuse here. It must have been nice to live such a sheltered life. I guess all the people who attacked me while I was still a child or young adult didn't get that "be kind to others" memo. I've made my peace with the way the world is, rather than how I wished it was. I don't think you have.
You know what question I've never heard you ask?... How did we get here?
Offline
What you propose is a return to repression. You propose this on a message board about people colonizing Mars, the future. You are a half twit and your out dated views belong in the basement in which they were written from.
And 60 years ago, in America, everyone was doing coke and f*cking. Society didn't protect women- that's a fantasy born out of your midnight fapping. Men were not held accountable for victimizing women. We have entire generations of mothers, sisters and colleagues all attesting to this.
Spend more of your time living your own life than pontificating on how others should better live their own lives.
That is a child's answer. Only a child views rules and boundaries as 'oppression'. A teenager may try to rebel against them. An adult understands the reasons behind rules and boundaries and works within them. Without them, there is no order. There is no society in which freedom can have any meaning. In a world in which rules and boundaries are degraded, you don't have freedom. You have poor decisions and damaged people. To regard social standards and expectations as some kind of oppression is an attitude that shows no appreciation for history or human nature.
Before the 1960s, there were plenty of bad people in America and Europe. There were murders, sexual assaults, theft, extortion and drug abuse. All of the crimes we know now. People are rough, violent and selfish creatures. And women were not always protected. I am not suggesting that this era was perfect and that everything about it was good. But crime rates were lower. People were indeed screwing, as you put it. But *most of it* took place within marriage. Today, most it does not and more people are left in compromising positions as a result. Most people have no ethical problem with sex, either now or then. But there is a time and a place for it. Boundaries are there to protect people. Only a child would think that the decay of social boundaries designed to protect people was some kind of freedom.
The tone of your posts is dripping with spite and resentment, like a man that never matured emotionaly beyond childhood and feels threatened by different opinions. You are frankly obnoxious. And I wonder at this point why I am bothering debating with a child.
Last edited by Calliban (2024-08-28 14:43:58)
"Plan and prepare for every possibility, and you will never act. It is nobler to have courage as we stumble into half the things we fear than to analyse every possible obstacle and begin nothing. Great things are achieved by embracing great dangers."
Offline