07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 4849505152 ...
tools
  1. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    The "war on women" includes a number of things, but the biggest problem I have with it is that it just combines things willy-nilly and clouds the issue.

    My view is pretty simple, and pretty easily applied. Every individual has the absolute right to do or not do anything they desire, up to the point where it has an impact on another individual, and then their rights stop absolutely. And in this usage, I define "right" as something which is intrinsic to the individual and requires no external authorization to be acted upon. As an example, I don't believe a "parent" has a "right" where their "children" are concerned. They have certain obligations, but at the end of the day their "children" are also individuals with equal status in this regard.

    So, in my view, there should be no such thing as "gender" in the consideration of individual rights. Either all people have the right, for instance, to self-determination, or they don't. If a woman seeks to acquire, wishes to purchase, obtains, and/or utilizes contraception for herself, it is NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS, period. If a woman, for instance, wished to force her daughter to use it against her daughter's will, I would regard that as a violation of this concept. If a woman were, for instance (and this is a ridiculous example) to obtain an IUD and use it to murder her husband, I would also consider this a violation.

    I believe costs of many medical items (medications, devices, etc.) are artificially inflated, and I don't think the public should have to bear this cost, regardless of what kind of item it is we're talking about. I regard that as one of the failings of any and all of our medical care coverage systems since at least the 1970s, and now that ACA exists, it too, sadly, shares that particular failing. However, as far as whether medical items for the purpose of birth control should be eligible for insurance coverage, I believe they should, and that it is fundamentally wrong to try and discriminate over coverage on the basis of intended legitimate use. Either an item is medically useful, or it isn't. Or, if you prefer, either an item is a current generation, considered to be useful, item for medical purposes, or it isn't. Discrimination should, in my view, be given on that basis alone.

    The public at large, the U.S. Federal Government where it has the propriety to do so, and the insurance industry, should be fighting the cost problem through doing all it can to discourage the practice of rampant profiteering. You shouldn't deny someone medical coverage because it costs too much; you should not allow those involved in producing the thing to get away with over-charging in the first place.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-10-2014 01:47 PM
  2. A895's Avatar
    We're doing home schooling in part because we don't like the government ran system, so they are gonna have to make some major changes before we are willing to put our kids in. Not window dressing.
    Not to say anything about ya parenting. But I learned so much about the real world going to a public city school (Rochester, NY and Atlanta, GA). Home schooling while great for your kids here and now, does nothing to prepare them for what is to come socially. Partying to sex to girlfriends and boyfriends all learned through public schools. Seems bad but, if they are exposed to it in school now prepares them for the worst later on. If anything I do say home schooling would have saved me from years of being bullied. Though that changed once I became an athlete.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    02-10-2014 01:51 PM
  3. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I think it should be left open to the parents. The other side of the college argument is the slacker that is making nothing of his or her life and living with their parents until middle age, or like my brother that has a decent paying job but just didn't have reason to move out until 26. I'm not going to kick my kids out simply because they graduated high school, but my level of support afterwards is dependent on their efforts to better themselves with my help. As they get older, I'll be making that known to them, and if I do have to kick them out for not upholding their end of the bargain (aka, "rent" ), it wouldn't be a surprise.

    The way the age 26 rule is being presented is that parents are obligated to keep their adult kids on the insurance, no matter what. That's setting up an unreasonable expectation in society. I'm kinda curious how long it'll be before one of these young adults is dropped from their parent's insurance and then sues the parents for doing so.
    The age 26 rule is on insurance company not on parents. They are not required to cover after the age of 18. It prevents the insurance company from kicking the kids off the plans. Before it was up to the company that provides the insurance what the policy was. Some it was 18. Other it up to 24 if you kid was in school and had to provide proof every long semester. Or it was as long as their primary residences was at their parents place.
    My dads company was calendar year you turn 25 was when you got dropped. It removes that mess and chances it company have no choice they are required to provided it until the kid turns 26 and then it is the parents call up until then. But lets face it most parents would help out until then any way they can.


    Ending pre-existing conditions at what price? I agree it should be looked into, but to simply say you can't be denied for one without considering and addressing the consequences is idiocy. All it'll result in is a large spike in premiums to offset the additional expenses on coverages.
    Some like life style I could agree but others that should not be declared "pre existing" things like depression, things like genetic disorder, cancer and so on. Those get lump under the pool. Now smokers I am all for them having a higher premume for X number of years while they are smoking and then X number of years afterwards.
    What immigration reform? They don't seen to be too interested in securing the Mexican border..
    Lets see more people have been deported than Bush,
    It was addressing the dream act which was long over due. (Kids being brought over while they are little and only know the US) That should of been done a long time ago. Or started ball rolling on fixing it long over due.
    02-10-2014 02:07 PM
  4. GadgetGator's Avatar
    While I think I agree with you in general sentiment, you are wrong on a number of facts. DOMA is still the law of the land, and Obama has no authority to do away with it or any other law.
    So he's supposed to enforce an unconstitutional law onto just a segment of the population, which would clearly be discriminatory???? Um, yeah. I don't think so.

    In fact, it is dereliction of duty on their parts to take such a stand, it should be considered an act of contempt of Congress
    So what is it called when a Congress passes an unconstitutional law against some of the citizens and a President signs it?

    However, you will never see me vote for anyone who is affiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans, ever again.
    Then you will never ever see a President you want in the White House. Instead your entire lifetime will be filled with you complaining about people you don't like there. Because in your lifetime, there will only be two options. Might the public be willing to branch out into third parties someday? Maybe. But again, not in your lifetime. Like it or not we are stuck with the two party system....not 3, 4, 5 or 6.
    palandri and msndrstood like this.
    02-10-2014 02:36 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Not to say anything about ya parenting. But I learned so much about the real world going to a public city school (Rochester, NY and Atlanta, GA). Home schooling while great for your kids here and now, does nothing to prepare them for what is to come socially. Partying to sex to girlfriends and boyfriends all learned through public schools. Seems bad but, if they are exposed to it in school now prepares them for the worst later on. If anything I do say home schooling would have saved me from years of being bullied. Though that changed once I became an athlete.
    Home schooling has come a long way. There are organized school plans like the various online programs (we're specifically looking into the K12 program), with field trips and such with other students in the plans that help with the social aspect. We do understand it's more our responsibility to have our kids socially adjusted, and already have plans to get them into group programs like sports and such outside of the school setting, as well as local parenting groups that do activities together. It's more work on our part, but it's not that hard to do.

    The age 26 rule is on insurance company not on parents. They are not required to cover after the age of 18. It prevents the insurance company from kicking the kids off the plans.
    As I said, that's not how it's presented and why it'll result in an unreasonable expectation in society.

    Some like life style I could agree but others that should not be declared "pre existing" things like depression, things like genetic disorder, cancer and so on. Those get lump under the pool. Now smokers I am all for them having a higher premume for X number of years while they are smoking and then X number of years afterwards.
    Lifestyle choices are one thing, but you still didn't address the cost issue. When people are accepted that have long term issues ahead of time, it's no longer a gamble on the part of the insurance company. They know they're going to be spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, on that client. How do you address that?


    Lets see more people have been deported than Bush,
    It was addressing the dream act which was long over due. (Kids being brought over while they are little and only know the US) That should of been done a long time ago. Or started ball rolling on fixing it long over due.
    Secure the border FIRST, and then we can talk about what to do with the ones that are here illegally. I'm not phased by the thought of sending back people that were brought here illegally as kids or even "anchor babies." It's their parents fault for doing something stupid like that, and that's where their anger should be focused. It is also on the parents to get their kids reacquainted with their home country. Don't be mad at us for what your parents did.

    But we don't have to start rounding up everyone and kicking them out. That wouldn't even work IMHO. How many repeat offenders do we have coming back after deportation? Enforce our current laws and go after the companies hiring illegals, it'll make the job environment here so unappealing that they won't keep trying to come in, and probably make some move back on their own.
    02-10-2014 02:41 PM
  6. Timelessblur's Avatar
    As I said, that's not how it's presented and why it'll result in an unreasonable expectation in society.
    How it is presented and how it is 2 very different things. It is the parents can choose to keep their kids on their insurance until 26. No more crazy patch work of policies but a set one for base line point. No other crazy requirements. One reason why it would appear to be presented that way is most parents want to help their kids.

    Lifestyle choices are one thing, but you still didn't address the cost issue. When people are accepted that have long term issues ahead of time, it's no longer a gamble on the part of the insurance company. They know they're going to be spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, on that client. How do you address that?
    While true to a point all it does is effect said age group and over all risk to that age group. Car insurance is not based on depression but your record and things you can control. Health insurance for a given age group their are plenty of factors that can be controlled like exercise and diet. You basically called shared risk which is what insurance is.


    Secure the border FIRST, and then we can talk about what to do with the ones that are here illegally. I'm not phased by the thought of sending back people that were brought here illegally as kids or even "anchor babies." It's their parents fault for doing something stupid like that, and that's where their anger should be focused. It is also on the parents to get their kids reacquainted with their home country. Don't be mad at us for what your parents did.

    But we don't have to start rounding up everyone and kicking them out. That wouldn't even work IMHO. How many repeat offenders do we have coming back after deportation? Enforce our current laws and go after the companies hiring illegals, it'll make the job environment here so unappealing that they won't keep trying to come in, and probably make some move back on their own.
    What is your base line for secure. If you mean total secure then well that is just standard stupidity as that is impossible. The normal practice in "secure" is crap. If you want to secure it go after the reason why they come here. Be very harsh and I mean VERY harsh on someone employee illegals. Problem is many companies turn a blind eye or even employee them knownly but use the threat of ICE to make them work for lower wages. Sadly the GOP tends to block things like that for any real movement. Have you ever thought about doing both at one time.

    As for the dream act it is kids who where brought here by the age of 15. I personally know some. Guess what they know no other country than the US. They grew up here. Hell even have a college degree here. Yet they should be deported to a country they don't know? They are in their 20's how can their parents get them readjusted.
    02-10-2014 03:29 PM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    While true to a point all it does is effect said age group and over all risk to that age group. Car insurance is not based on depression but your record and things you can control. Health insurance for a given age group their are plenty of factors that can be controlled like exercise and diet. You basically called shared risk which is what insurance is.
    If you have a pre-existing condition, it doesn't matter what age group you belong in, other than expected lifetime costs. To this point, ironically, that cost could go down as you get older before being insured since there's less life to spend on. Risk is the likelihood of something happening. If they know you already have a lasting condition, it's not a risk. The event already happened and now it's a relatively easy task of estimating continuing cost of care and then spreading that cost out to others on top of the actual risks accounted for.


    What is your base line for secure. If you mean total secure then well that is just standard stupidity as that is impossible. The normal practice in "secure" is crap. If you want to secure it go after the reason why they come here. Be very harsh and I mean VERY harsh on someone employee illegals. Problem is many companies turn a blind eye or even employee them knownly but use the threat of ICE to make them work for lower wages. Sadly the GOP tends to block things like that for any real movement. Have you ever thought about doing both at one time.
    Did you not read what I posted about this? It's almost the same thing I posted, minus the both at once bit. The government needs to earn the public's trust by putting the useful laws to work first before passing more, or even think about amnesty for any that are already here. Otherwise, what reason do we have to believe they will do anything to preventing more illegals? There's plenty of holes they could also plug in the boarder too.

    As for the dream act it is kids who where brought here by the age of 15. I personally know some. Guess what they know no other country than the US. They grew up here. Hell even have a college degree here. Yet they should be deported to a country they don't know? They are in their 20's how can their parents get them readjusted.
    Who's fault is that? Certainly not the U.S., and not our problem for them adjusting to their home country. Or how about this, if they get any assistance to stay here, they give up their parents info/location so we can charge the parents for the cost of putting that burden on our country. I have no problem with being compassionate in general, but I'll never be compassionate to someone breaking our laws to get here and then expecting our help (nor the government providing said help) for them or their illegal kids.

    Edit: If that doesn't work, we charge the home country for the cost of putting up with illegals from them.
    02-10-2014 04:18 PM
  8. GadgetGator's Avatar
    I'm not phased by the thought of sending back people that were brought here illegally as kids or even "anchor babies." It's their parents fault for doing something stupid like that
    Who's fault is that? Certainly not the U.S., and not our problem for them adjusting to their home country. Or how about this, if they get any assistance to stay here, they give up their parents info/location so we can charge the parents for the cost of putting that burden on our country. I have no problem with being compassionate in general, but I'll never be compassionate to someone breaking our laws to get here and then expecting our help (nor the government providing said help) for them or their illegal kids.
    Wow. I don't think you are as compassionate as you think you are reading over those comments. Clearly you haven't thought about what other people go through enough here. So, time for a little role play. Let's say you were brought here at the age of TWO. Clearly you have no memories of any other country. You have grown up here, been raised here, and have got an education here. You may not even know the language of the place you once came from. You certainly do not know anyone there. Now you are 16. And the government wants to deport you. To a place that for all intents and purposes is completely foreign to you. It would be like picking up an American citizen and plopping them down in Iran, or Turkey, or Russia and saying hey...here you go. You are on your own with no money, no resources, and no help or family. Now make a go of it. How would that even work?

    It doesn't make sense for us to deport people that we have already spent money on educating all these years. Instead we should be trying to get something out of our investment rather than letting some other country benefit from that, which is a stupid thing to do.
    02-10-2014 06:12 PM
  9. A895's Avatar
    Wow. I don't think you are as compassionate as you think you are reading over those comments. Clearly you haven't thought about what other people go through enough here. So, time for a little role play. Let's say you were brought here at the age of TWO. Clearly you have no memories of any other country. You have grown up here, been raised here, and have got an education here. You may not even know the language of the place you once came from. You certainly do not know anyone there. Now you are 16. And the government wants to deport you. To a place that for all intents and purposes is completely foreign to you. It would be like picking up an American citizen and plopping them down in Iran, or Turkey, or Russia and saying hey...here you go. You are on your own with no money, no resources, and no help or family. Now make a go of it. How would that even work?

    It doesn't make sense for us to deport people that we have already spent money on educating all these years. Instead we should be trying to get something out of our investment rather than letting some other country benefit from that, which is a stupid thing to do.
    Exactly this. I think people still have an old times mindset. If they have been here for years let them be full blown citizens, and put some jobs and money into our country.

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    02-10-2014 06:21 PM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The logical side of me would be like what I said earlier. I should be mad at my parents for screwing up my beginning years. Problem is, it's likely they would have raised me to believe the U.S. owes me something. Not having any other major influence outside of them and the people they associate with (likely with all the same beliefs), that would leave me with those same beliefs. Under those circumstances, most people would be upset with the U.S., but that doesn't make it justified that we owe them anything.
    02-10-2014 06:28 PM
  11. A895's Avatar
    The logical side of me would be like what I said earlier. I should be mad at my parents for screwing up my beginning years. Problem is, it's likely they would have raised me to believe the U.S. owes me something. Not having any other major influence outside of them and the people they associate with (likely with all the same beliefs), that would leave me with those same beliefs. Under those circumstances, most people would be upset with the U.S., but that doesn't make it justified that we owe them anything.
    A picture of Mark Twain shirtless makes your argument invalid.


    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    Attached Thumbnails Should Obama be impeached?-1392084967942.jpg ย 
    02-10-2014 08:16 PM
  12. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Please describe this "war on women". What are they doing to women, besides trying to convince them to not murder their unborn child?
    Was wondering when this ignorance would pop up! What has the GOP ever done for women, aside from making binders of them?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    GadgetGator likes this.
    02-10-2014 08:25 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Was wondering when this ignorance would pop up! What has the GOP ever done for women, aside from making binders of them?
    By that token, what is any political leadership supposed to do for any speciality group? Not much.

    A picture of Mark Twain shirtless makes your argument invalid.
    :what:
    02-10-2014 08:29 PM
  14. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    So he's supposed to enforce an unconstitutional law onto just a segment of the population, which would clearly be discriminatory???? Um, yeah. I don't think so.
    It is not up to the President or anyone else to determine what laws he/she should enforce and which he/she should not. If its a law on the books, he/she is required to see it is enforced. Period. No exceptions. If the President wants to approach Congress and say, Hey, you know what, XYZ is a really bad law and you should repeal it, then they can decide if they wish to do that, and if they do, then they can in fact repeal it. If the law tramples upon the Constitution, a court case can be brought before the Supreme Court, and they can then and only then strike the law down as unconstitutional.

    It is scary to imagine just what powers you and palandri believe the President to legally have. The position is that of Chief Executive, not King.

    So what is it called when a Congress passes an unconstitutional law against some of the citizens and a President signs it?
    Its likewise bad, though I have no idea about the legal status of such acts. In any event, the People simply do not bother to hold government officials accountable. So, from my position, the People are getting what they deserve.

    Then you will never ever see a President you want in the White House. Instead your entire lifetime will be filled with you complaining about people you don't like there. Because in your lifetime, there will only be two options. Might the public be willing to branch out into third parties someday? Maybe. But again, not in your lifetime. Like it or not we are stuck with the two party system....not 3, 4, 5 or 6.
    Right, so then I should just abandon my principles. BTW, when have I complained? And what makes you think I ever have seen a President I wanted in the White House?

    I fully recognize this country is f***ed, and the only thing at this point keeping me from caring any more is that the People have brought this on themselves and have no interest in doing anything about it. Look at all the idiots out there who think people like Manning, Assange, and Snowden are evil bad guys and who think Ron Paul is some kind of crazy kook when hes the only one in a Presidential Debate who is willing to talk about the causes of why we are where were at economically, politically, socially, including talking about the effects of blowback, government waste, etc. Why in the world should I want to help support a public like that?

    Mike, many states have criminal laws on the books that aren't enforced like, "It is illegal to sleep naked". You can look through them here: Dumb Laws, Stupid Laws: We have weird laws, strange laws, and just plain crazy laws! It's not a dereliction of duty to not enforce them.
    Its not an equal example, and even if it were, it doesnt matter. Its there and has to be enforced. Now, if you have a its illegal to sleep naked kind of law which cannot possibly be enforced, it is still the responsibility of the police, sherifs, judges, district attorneys, and the State Governor to uphold that law, even though their enforcement is at that point merely hypothetical.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    02-10-2014 08:33 PM
  15. A895's Avatar
    Was wondering when this ignorance would pop up! What has the GOP ever done for women, aside from making binders of them?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com

    Posted via VZW Moto X on the Android Central App
    02-10-2014 08:39 PM
  16. pappy53's Avatar
    Was wondering when this ignorance would pop up! What has the GOP ever done for women, aside from making binders of them?

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    And vice-versa, what has the Dems done for women?
    And no, I'm not ignorant.
    02-10-2014 09:19 PM
  17. palandri's Avatar
    And vice-versa, what has the Dems done for women?
    And no, I'm not ignorant.
    This may hurt your eyes, but you could start with this: Women | People | Democrats.org
    GadgetGator and nolittdroid like this.
    02-10-2014 09:45 PM
  18. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I think we all know most of us can find a link that supports what we are trying to say. Half dont trust fox, half dont trust msnbc. So one guy makes a tasteless comment and all conservatives are labeled anti-women. I seem to remember Sarah Palin being verbally abused by most of the politicians and pundits on the left. Where was this sentiment at that time? How many people have been fired/resigned and or had to make public apologies at MSNBC for their tasteless comments? Its ridiculous that we let idiots on both sides talk us into thinking there's a war on so and so. Both parties contain negative minded members.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-10-2014 10:09 PM
  19. pappy53's Avatar
    This may hurt your eyes, but you could start with this: Women | People | Democrats.org
    A liberal website? You think that's credible? ๐Ÿ˜„๐Ÿ˜„๐Ÿ˜„


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    02-10-2014 10:47 PM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    I think we all know most of us can find a link that supports what we are trying to say. Half dont trust fox, half dont trust msnbc. So one guy makes a tasteless comment and all conservatives are labeled anti-women. I seem to remember Sarah Palin being verbally abused by most of the politicians and pundits on the left. Where was this sentiment at that time? How many people have been fired/resigned and or had to make public apologies at MSNBC for their tasteless comments? Its ridiculous that we let idiots on both sides talk us into thinking there's a war on so and so. Both parties contain negative minded members.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    So what's your point?
    02-10-2014 10:51 PM
  21. palandri's Avatar
    A liberal website? You think that's credible?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    LOL! It depends on your views. If someone thinks a woman should be in a home making babies, they think one way. If someone believes in the ERA, they think another way.
    02-10-2014 10:53 PM
  22. palandri's Avatar
    ...Its not an equal example, and even if it were, it doesnt matter. Its there and has to be enforced. Now, if you have a its illegal to sleep naked kind of law which cannot possibly be enforced, it is still the responsibility of the police, sherifs, judges, district attorneys, and the State Governor to uphold that law, even though their enforcement is at that point merely hypothetical.
    Mike, Look at that link of dumb laws I gave you. It is an equal example. Many states have laws that are still on the books that aren't enforced.
    02-10-2014 11:27 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Mike, Look at that link of dumb laws I gave you. It is an equal example. Many states have laws that are still on the books that aren't enforced.
    For the sake of argument, what would you, Mike, or anyone else for that matter, say to making a provision that once a law becomes obsolete, that it can be considered voided? For example, let's say there was a law requiring buggy whips to be 6 feet long. Since those are no longer really made, the law is functionally obsolete and thus no longer enforced even if not officially repealed.

    Of course then comes the question of who/what determines the law should be voided for being obsolete (constitutional challenges side)? Would it be a vote? Would it be a 50%+1 requirement, 2/3, 90%, or other requirement? Should hot button topics remain enforced during the debating or cultural shifts so long as it's not violating the constitution? Also keep in mind, even the most absurd laws has some reason for coming about, so should they simply be voided if said reason no longer applied? Or simply let officials stop enforcing them as they have and see if anyone bothers to challenge the lack of enforcement?

    On the face of it, such a provision sounds good, but also has a number of issues on its own like I mentioned above. Where do we draw the line?
    02-11-2014 12:29 AM
  24. GadgetGator's Avatar
    It is not up to the President or anyone else to determine what laws he/she should enforce and which he/she should not. If itโ€™s a law on the books, he/she is required to see it is enforced. Period. No exceptions. If the President wants to approach Congress and say, โ€œHey, you know what, XYZ is a really bad law and you should repeal it,โ€ then they can decide if they wish to do that, and if they do, then they can in fact repeal it. If the law tramples upon the Constitution, a court case can be brought before the Supreme Court, and they can then and only then strike the law down as unconstitutional.
    One was. And they did.

    It is scary to imagine just what powers you and palandri believe the President to legally have. The position is that of Chief Executive, not King.
    It's scary that you think laws that discriminate against a segment should remain on the books and enforced by people that don't believe in it. For the same reason that we should not be slaves to the "king" notion you fallacy assume the President to be or what I want, we should not be slaves to some legislation either. It is impossible to undo this legislation right now because many Republicans are anti-gay. That is just a fact. They have also rigged (gerrymandered) the house so that it is near impossible to lose control of it. Therefore it is impossible to repeal this. Meaning it would stay enforced and on the books indefinitely waiting around for congress to get to it. Which is why we are so paralyzed in other matters. It all comes down to one word: Gerrymandering. I don't believe unconstitutional measures that target one part of the population through bigoted animus should remain enforced. PERIOD. It's shameful that it was in place as long as it was. It's up to the President to uphold the Constitution, so how can he continue to enforce something unconstitutional? What you are suggesting is the violation of the Constitution and the office of President. Not what I am.

    Itโ€™s likewise bad, though I have no idea about the legal status of such acts. In any event, the People simply do not bother to hold government officials accountable. So, from my position, the People are getting what they deserve.
    That's weak....I (nor any other minority) do not deserve harm inflicted upon them because the majority "get what they deserve". You put me in a no winning situation with that logic.

    Right, so then I should just abandon my principles. BTW, when have I complained? And what makes you think I ever have seen a President I wanted in the White House?
    When have you complained? This post and others you have written are full of complaining. And absent someone you want in the White House there is only complaining about it left as an option.

    Case in point:
    I fully recognize this country is f***ed, and the only thing at this point keeping me from caring any more is that the People have brought this on themselves and have no interest in doing anything about it. Look at all the idiots out there who think people like Manning, Assange, and Snowden are evil bad guys and who think Ron Paul is some kind of crazy kook when heโ€™s the only one in a Presidential Debate who is willing to talk about the causes of why we are where weโ€™re at economically, politically, socially, including talking about the effects of blowback, government waste, etc. Why in the world should I want to help support a public like that?
    palandri and nolittdroid like this.
    02-11-2014 03:16 AM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar
    And vice-versa, what has the Dems done for women?
    And no, I'm not ignorant.
    Many women care about abortion choice. And don't like the idea of things like mandatory ultrasounds that Republicans have proposed. There there is the whole equal wage thing. Why are Republicans against that? At some point you need to face the fact that Republican party (as a whole) does not support women, does no outreach to blacks, only panders to hispanics, out and out rejects gays, and in return gets out of elections what they put into them. The party will never win the White House ever again with changing demographics if they do not reach out to them. They have painted themselves into the corner and are now faced with the dilemma of sticking to their core principles which people are rejecting, or changing. Change or die. That is the two options on the table here.

    I think we all know most of us can find a link that supports what we are trying to say. Half dont trust fox, half dont trust msnbc. So one guy makes a tasteless comment and all conservatives are labeled anti-women.
    One? When a party has to have sensitive training for it's male members because comment after comment shoots themselves in the foot come election time, you know you've got a problem. Far more than just one comment.

    I seem to remember Sarah Palin being verbally abused by most of the politicians and pundits on the left. Where was this sentiment at that time? How many people have been fired/resigned and or had to make public apologies at MSNBC for their tasteless comments?
    Let's not forget that Sarah herself has made some pretty bad comments. Only difference is she never apologizes for anything she says. That being said, any crude comments towards her were wrong and have been dealt with. Hopefully no more (from either side) come up. Although I wouldn't bet on that.

    A liberal website? You think that's credible?
    Well, when Faux won't show you the data, it's got to come from SOMEwhere.๐Ÿ˜„๐Ÿ˜„๐Ÿ˜„
    palandri and nolittdroid like this.
    02-11-2014 03:29 AM
1,900 ... 4849505152 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD