Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
It is a free country, and part of that freedom is to be honest and respectful of those freedoms instead of saying lies and then hiding behind them because of "perception" or something.

Right... so anyone's opinions contrary to yours are lies... gotcha.

Err no that is taking it out of context.

He has said that some of your statements have been false so they technically are lies.

Again... I repeat myself...

I'm done as it's not on OP.

That being said I wholeheartedly agree with what your saying

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
A step in the right direction would be instituting a tax on all products that contain high fructose corn syrup, stop subsidizing the corn and grain industries, and instead use that money to lower the prices on fresh fruits, vegetables, and lean meat.

Guess I missed the part where the First Lady had the power to do that.

Is this "let's be obtuse" day? She can suggest that and she can certainly persuade her husband (you know...the president) to try to get that achieved.

Yeah my post didnt get automatically appended.

So you know for a fact she didnt?

There is no evidence that she did. She's certainly never made a statement suggesting that.

Article 0 in the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers of the Constitution. They include, but are not limited to, baking cookies for everyone and regulating the sale of high fructose corn syrup.

For what it's worth, whembly, I don't think you're a liar. I think you just tend to find things that agree with your prejudices and then when told that those things are factually inaccurate you then just talk about perception. Adults should look at evidence and then come to their conclusions, instead of finding evidence to support their prejudices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you really think that she could come out and say those things, Amaya? What little things she has said has caused a gak storm on the right, can you even begin to imagine what they would say about "Moo-chelle" trying to do something to actually stop obesity? You're just being ridiculous now.

Amaya were not talking about just any old commodity were talking about heavily subsidized corn product that has tons of lobbyists. I can tell from your posts your intelligent so you know this. It takes a LOT more than the first lady to get something like that taxed.

But she can still start the ball rolling and getting the idea out there or at least raise awareness as to HFCS's danger. Advocating the stereotypical "skinny bitch" diet isn't enough.

TheHammer wrote:
Article 0 in the Constitution deals with the enumerated powers of the Constitution. They include, but are not limited to, baking cookies for everyone and regulating the sale of high fructose corn syrup.

For what it's worth, whembly, I don't think you're a liar. I think you just tend to find things that agree with your prejudices and then when told that those things are factually inaccurate you then just talk about perception. Adults should look at evidence and then come to their conclusions, instead of finding evidence to support their prejudices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you really think that she could come out and say those things, Amaya? What little things she has said has caused a gak storm on the right, can you even begin to imagine what they would say about "Moo-chelle" trying to do something to actually stop obesity? You're just being ridiculous now.

Hammer... thanks.

I'm not saying I'm right... I can be wrong. There's a lot of "finding evidence to support their prejudices" on both sides to be honest.

 Amaya wrote:
But she can still start the ball rolling and getting the idea out there or at least raise awareness as to HFCS's danger. Advocating the stereotypical "skinny bitch" diet isn't enough.

I agree fully she should. That gak is fething deadly in my opinion. But would you POSSIBLY admit that there might be pressure to not say anything like that from the corn lobby?

Of course. That's why those fething donkey-caves have succeeded in poisoning America. They are making money off of killing people essentially.

Edit: Especially the poor. The fact liberals aren't up in arms over this is amazing. Capitalist corn lobbyists are selling poison to America, but essentially to the poor who make notoriously bad diet decisions or can not afford healthy food. Screw the abortion issue, this is much worse.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
No...Just...Feth no...

That is absolutely disgusting. Someone should tear his spine out and sodomize him with it.

Now that's an image.

 Amaya wrote:
Of course. That's why those fething donkey-caves have succeeded in poisoning America. They are making money off of killing people essentially.

Edit: Especially the poor. The fact liberals aren't up in arms over this is amazing. Capitalist corn lobbyists are selling poison to America, but essentially to the poor who make notoriously bad diet decisions or can not afford healthy food. Screw the abortion issue, this is much worse.

Absolutely. But theres a reason even the FDA is remiss to post too much negative gak about corn syrup. And its a lot more than Dem/Rep politics. And I definitely do agree with you that she should be doing more if shes trying to promote healthy eating. But a start is a start. The fact my nephew's generation is expected to live less than his parents for one of the few times in history is disgusting to me. And its in large part due to obesity related issues.

Thing is, if you believe life begins at conception and should be protected, then it is reasonable to conclude that it shouldn't matter whether that life was created through consensual or non-consensual sex.

I'm more puzzled by the people who believe abortion should be outlawed except in cases of rape, to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not saying I'm right... I can be wrong. There's a lot of "finding evidence to support their prejudices" on both sides to be honest.

Sure, it's common on both sides but that doesn't make it alright. In fact, because it is so common on both sides that makes it less acceptable whenever it happens.

 sebster wrote:
Thing is, if you believe life begins at conception and should be protected, then it is reasonable to conclude that it shouldn't matter whether that life was created through consensual or non-consensual sex.

That is the point he was struggling to make, yes. And while I do not subscribe to it, I understand it.

However, the manner in which he said it, and the choice of the word 'valid,' has, at least in the context, a perceived moral implication to it, like I said earlier. Even knowing what he meant the instant he said it, the quote still reads to me like, "Conception through rape is just as good as other types of conception." Biologically, true. Morally, abhorrent.

Whether you believe in the "war on women" or not, the degree to which the Republicans seem to be tone deaf about the issue is pretty fething amazing.

 Amaya wrote:
, oatmeal (not terrible, but not healthy),

go to /fit/

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Oh...and everyone... that's just a list of the "percieved' greivences that I"m seeing.

Whether they have any basis, thats debatable.

Do anyone want to see my Bush list?

I have a Buchanan list...

EVERYONE has a Buchanan list.

I have a Jefferson list., (or had one, can't seem to find it now)

I have a bush list, I just don't think it covers the same items as yours.

I voted for Obama and I have a list of stuff he did that I don't like.

I didn't vote for Bush Jr, and I have a list of stuff he did that I do like.

To expect every politician to be 100% right or wrong is stupid.

Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.

 Huffy wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
, oatmeal (not terrible, but not healthy),

go to /fit/

Seriously, go to 4chan?

have a bush list, I just don't think it covers the same items as yours.

Pics Auston or its a lie!!!!!eeerrrrrrr....nvm....there be some 18 and under in here.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.

The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?

 Seaward wrote:
That is the point he was struggling to make, yes. And while I do not subscribe to it, I understand it.

However, the manner in which he said it, and the choice of the word 'valid,' has, at least in the context, a perceived moral implication to it, like I said earlier. Even knowing what he meant the instant he said it, the quote still reads to me like, "Conception through rape is just as good as other types of conception." Biologically, true. Morally, abhorrent.

Whether you believe in the "war on women" or not, the degree to which the Republicans seem to be tone deaf about the issue is pretty fething amazing.

I agree that the Republican party as a whole with women's issues, but I'm not sure that extends to Ryan's comment here. I mean, what he said was awkward enough that anyone who wanted to go looking for outrage could find it, but I think a reasonably impartial reading would see he was just giving a position that's pretty common among Republicans.

And yeah, I don't agree with outlawing abortion even in cases of rape, but I do understand it. More interesting to me is that 'life begins at conception' is now almost unanimous among the church, but was an issue of debate among religious leaders just forty years ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:
The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?

They'd call them reactionary, probably.

I agree that it is unlikely, but I'd say it is more probable than you give it credit for. Afterall, Republicans realised some time ago that the Presidency is all about nominating Supreme Court justices, and one of the major criteria they have for any potential nomination is their position on Roe v Wade. If Republicans continue to win their share of presidential races, and continue to hold their 5-4 position in the Supreme Court, and continue to have abortion as a key element of their platform, then having 5 justices on the Supreme Court who disagree with Roe v Wade becomes a matter of time. The real issue is whether Republicans will dare resolve an issue that wins them so many votes every year.

 AustonT wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.

The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?

It would for the most part be impossible for roe v wade to be overturned by SCOTUS,given all they can do is rule laws unconstitutional. We would have to see congress pass a lwa banning abortions, then for it to be challenged in court, then ruled constitutional. It just cant realistically happen. That is kind of the buety of the American system, we are horribly inefficient but that inefficiency prevents many bad laws

politicians are some of the stupidest richest people on earth


they live in a bubble and we are their pawns




I have faith in humanity, and I want to help us back into HUMANITY. I have a plan to give a life back to the largest unemployed sector, the homeless. I have met many a person who fell on bad times and wound up on their ass on the street. Not saying everyone isn't a junkie and a waste of O2, but everyone deserves a chance if they will work for it. I want to buy an apartment building and furnish all the units. I would find tenants off the street. I would make a program where you work and pay a minimum rent so you can save money to move out on your own at some point in time. The biggest thing a homeless person faces when trying to get a job is not being able to get a good nights sleep and clean themselves up. Just imagine if you can get folks back out on their own feet in 3-6 months. Hundreds of people could be helped in a year, a real change could be made in folks lives.


and I am not talking slave labor, well paid employees are known to work harder than people getting minimum wage

but in reality there are 2 forms of pay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

 youbedead wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, IF Woe V. Wade does get overturned, soon in the media there will be the story of mothers dieing for back alley abortions. and it will come right back.

The possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned is minuscule. I guess it shouldn't be ruled out completely, but you'd have to have a very extreme an activist SCOTUS. I'd call it an extreme "conservative" SOCTUS, but taking away rights is not conserving rights so what do call that? A regressive activist court?

It would for the most part be impossible for roe v wade to be overturned by SCOTUS,given all they can do is rule laws unconstitutional. We would have to see congress pass a lwa banning abortions, then for it to be challenged in court, then ruled constitutional. It just cant realistically happen. That is kind of the buety of the American system, we are horribly inefficient but that inefficiency prevents many bad laws

there's plenty of ways to get there. The easiest one is for congress to pass a law prohibiting/requiring insurance to pay/not pay for abortions and have it be challenged to at least the appellate level. Then SCOTUS could potentially elect to cite and then overturn Roe, or not mention it and create a de facto ban on abortions by forcing people to pay out of pocket for abortion.

Seb: I get what you are driving at but look how well conservative judges worked out on Roe ja? Judges are rarely just fatuous gas bags and political puppets. Such judges are even more rare in SCOTUS, I can't even fathom an actual situation where Roe would be overturned, let alone by a 5-4. I could be wrong of course, but I think most judges come down on the side of civil liberties when push comes shove.

whembly wrote:
@Azazel... eh, Huffington post is like any other blogger, they use baiting topics to get the "clicks". That's true with any site out there. If I remember... Arianna worked for Conservative politician (not sure who), then started supporting typically (D) issues. This site us usually touted is a "liberal mouthpiece"... but, I'm not so sure that's true. (yes, I read that site too).

Right, okay. But you see the difference between me posting an editorial piece from a mouthpiece, a la you; and me posting a link to a video of a primary source -Ryan himself speaking on camera- that just so happens to be hosted on a mouthpiece site, right?

Amaya wrote:Saying somebody else made that happen is a flat out lie and an ignorant statement. People may have helped, but people help all sorts of people who don't open up businesses. Unless you inherited it from someone, if you are business owner you had to bust your ass to get it started.

Yes. Bust your ass and get a small business loan, thereby demonstrating how correct Obama's statement was. Unless your startup money was stashed in your closet, in which case it probably came from somewhere, at the very least a job that you got to via driving on government roads and were able to save up because the social infrastructure prevented a guy with assless chaps and a red mohawk from pillaging your home.

The only people who can honestly claim they started everything on their own are frontier trappers and panhandlers, and those guys haven't been around for about a hundred years. If you think otherwise, then go ahead and give me an example, and I'll point out to you how your example used the existing infrastructure in order to succeed.

 Frazzled wrote:

10% real unemployment. 15%+ underemployment.
GDP less than 2%
The largest deficit in the history of mankind.
The horror show that is Obamacare instead of a proper program.
And for the record. We still have Gitmo.

As opposed to what the other side of the isle has offered:
A plan to make the rich richer in hopes they hire more people.
No change
More deficit to keep tax cuts for the wealthy while doing away with public services.
No program at all. (It's ironic they call it 'obamacare' as it was originally proposed by Newt Gingrich about twenty years ago.)
And more gitmos as opposed to fewer.


From my perspective it's a choice between bad and worse, not bad and good.

BaronIveagh wrote:From my perspective it's a choice between bad and worse, not bad and good.

But that's part of the nirvana fallacy that permeates the thinking of the GOP: there's no perfect solution, so they won't try to solve anything at all.