Random News Observations

[timwakefield 68]

The war on poor people, "trickle-down" economics that make the rich richer and everybody else poorer, Christian rock, creationism museums, the war on drugs, the war on intelligence, 2 actual wars in Iraq, wait I'm doing the wrong one.

[AmScray 355]

Got this far. As much as I enjoy the snarky sarcasm, he gets it wrong right off the bat. Yes, conservatism is an ideology and liberalism isn't, that's because liberalism is a "method" to governance. It seeks to try what actually works as opposed to simply following dogma regardless.

I find it rather amusing that Liberals have hijacked the idea of 'objective realism'. Their entire philosophy is based on idealogy, they have tried to put those idealogies into practice several times in direct spite of facts and suffered catastrophic- albeit elaborately predicted- failures.Housing projects would be a classic example, relevant to me since I live in the city that was Ground 0 for them. They tore them down to make room for another deluded ideal- "mixed rate housing" where the former CHA residents are commingled with retarded idealists who are dumb enough to buy a house next to them...... and who are those idealists? Callous conservatives? No. It's your typical young, tragically naive liberal type who doesn't understand what they're in for, since they've been force-fed leftist ideology on race- the holiest and most sacred cow- since birth. The inevitable outcome is that they learn that lesson the hard way. Their idealism gives way to hard, hard truisms and now, it's slightly easier to find someone willing to bareback an AIDS whore than it is someone willing to buy into the various "mixed rate communities" since we now have a decade of frontline reports posted on the internet, as far as how awful they really are.

"My wife and I moved in with great hopes. We were thrilled to be living so near downtown in such an exciting and diverse community....(ten paragraphs later)So after our third burglary, fifth stolen car and not having had a good night sleep since god knows when because the gang bangers next door were having their fifteenth consecutive all night cookout/block party, my wife said that if we didn't sell and move out, she was going to leave me for a Republican lawyer who lived in Naperville...."

I don't know how a liberal can say that liberals are the 'realists' and keep a straight face, but I suppose they arrived at that conclusion employing the same naivete on life that makde them a liberal in the first place.

[AmScray 355]

This is partially true, in that a diverse population is more resilient and inventive than a homogenous one. The left is wrong that forced diversity is strength though; that just causes resentment and friction.

Yeah. Those Japanese have really proven what a catastrophe racial homogeneity is.

[phlegm 6]

I find it rather amusing that Liberals have hijacked the idea of 'objective realism'. Their entire philosophy is based on idealogy, they have tried to put those idealogies into practice several times in direct spite of facts and suffered catastrophic- albeit elaborately predicted- failures.Housing projects would be a classic example, relevant to me since I live in the city that was Ground 0 for them. They tore them down to make room for another deluded ideal- "mixed rate housing" where the former CHA residents are commingled with retarded idealists who are dumb enough to buy a house next to them...... and who are those idealists? Callous conservatives? No. It's your typical young, tragically naive liberal type who doesn't understand what they're in for, since they've been force-fed leftist ideology on race- the holiest and most sacred cow- since birth. The inevitable outcome is that they learn that lesson the hard way. Their idealism gives way to hard, hard truisms and now, it's slightly easier to find someone willing to bareback an AIDS whore than it is someone willing to buy into the various "mixed rate communities" since we now have a decade of frontline reports posted on the internet, as far as how awful they really are. I don't know how a liberal can say that liberals are the 'realists' and keep a straight face, but I suppose they arrived at that conclusion employing the same naivete on life that makde them a liberal in the first place.

I cant keep up with youse guys intellectually, but I can certainly reckognize one of the best posts ever.Along the same lines.

[akoff 0]

I find it rather amusing that Liberals have hijacked the idea of 'objective realism'. Their entire philosophy is based on idealogy, they have tried to put those idealogies into practice several times in direct spite of facts and suffered catastrophic- albeit elaborately predicted- failures.Housing projects would be a classic example, relevant to me since I live in the city that was Ground 0 for them. They tore them down to make room for another deluded ideal- "mixed rate housing" where the former CHA residents are commingled with retarded idealists who are dumb enough to buy a house next to them...... and who are those idealists? Callous conservatives? No. It's your typical young, tragically naive liberal type who doesn't understand what they're in for, since they've been force-fed leftist ideology on race- the holiest and most sacred cow- since birth. The inevitable outcome is that they learn that lesson the hard way. Their idealism gives way to hard, hard truisms and now, it's slightly easier to find someone willing to bareback an AIDS whore than it is someone willing to buy into the various "mixed rate communities" since we now have a decade of frontline reports posted on the internet, as far as how awful they really are. I don't know how a liberal can say that liberals are the 'realists' and keep a straight face, but I suppose they arrived at that conclusion employing the same naivete on life that makde them a liberal in the first place.

outstanding

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Pretty great response to a totally unselfaware Rupurt Murdoch tweet.Rupert Murdoch ‏@rupertmurdochSeems impossible to have civilised debate on twitter. Ignorant,vicious abuse lowers whole society, maybe shows real social decay.Jon Snow‏@jonsnowC4@rupertmurdoch I find that in life one reaps what one sows...

[Balloon guy 158]

Democrats want an Ex-Patriot Act

[brvheart 1,752]

I don't think Planned Parenthood is going to like this trend.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The guy who helped the US find Bin Laden was just tossed in jail for 33 years by Pakistan.

[phlegm 6]

The guy who helped the US find Bin Laden was just tossed in jail for 33 years by Pakistan.

I don't think Planned Parenthood is going to like this trend.

If the day comes that a fetus can be identifyed as gay, and wholesale abortions result, will the lgbt community suddenly become pro life?

[ShakeZuma 585]

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't think Planned Parenthood is going to like this trend.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be "pro-life", so excuse me if this is a dumb question. But what do "pro-lifers" say about extreme situations, like rape? Can rape victims have abortions?As a separate point, I find it surprising that the right is also often "pro-life". For a group that is for lessening government intervention, I don't understand why this group supports having the government determine such a critical thing. I can accept not wanting the government to pay for abortions (outside of rape and other extreme situations), but I don't understand how that side reconciles the very anti-freedom aspects of being "pro-life". Is it really just the idea that by having an abortion, you are denying the freedom of someone else (the future human), and so you are prevented from doing that (which is fine, I'm not pro-murder...except maybe phlegm). And if THAT is true, and science has already indicated that a few-week old child is not a human being, then how do these people rationalize things like (gasp) masturbation or protected sex? I don't mean to strawman the crap out of this, so please tell me if my strawmans are poor assumptions.

[brvheart 1,752]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be "pro-life", so excuse me if this is a dumb question. But what do "pro-lifers" say about extreme situations, like rape? Can rape victims have abortions?As a separate point, I find it surprising that the right is also often "pro-life". For a group that is for lessening government intervention, I don't understand why this group supports having the government determine such a critical thing. I can accept not wanting the government to pay for abortions (outside of rape and other extreme situations), but I don't understand how that side reconciles the very anti-freedom aspects of being "pro-life". Is it really just the idea that by having an abortion, you are denying the freedom of someone else (the future human), and so you are prevented from doing that (which is fine, I'm not pro-murder...except maybe phlegm). And if THAT is true, and science has already indicated that a few-week old child is not a human being, then how do these people rationalize things like (gasp) masturbation or protected sex? I don't mean to strawman the crap out of this, so please tell me if my strawmans are poor assumptions.

Why do you think that a baby should be murdered because his dad was evil?Why shouldn't a baby be protected?What if the baby is a girl? Doesn't she have the same rights to life as her mother?

[DJ Vu 176]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be "pro-life", so excuse me if this is a dumb question. But what do "pro-lifers" say about extreme situations, like rape? Can rape victims have abortions?As a separate point, I find it surprising that the right is also often "pro-life". For a group that is for lessening government intervention, I don't understand why this group supports having the government determine such a critical thing. I can accept not wanting the government to pay for abortions (outside of rape and other extreme situations), but I don't understand how that side reconciles the very anti-freedom aspects of being "pro-life". Is it really just the idea that by having an abortion, you are denying the freedom of someone else (the future human), and so you are prevented from doing that (which is fine, I'm not pro-murder...except maybe phlegm). And if THAT is true, and science has already indicated that a few-week old child is not a human being, then how do these people rationalize things like (gasp) masturbation or protected sex? I don't mean to strawman the crap out of this, so please tell me if my strawmans are poor assumptions.

To start, it's not about the government determining anything. They have determined for themselves when life starts and therefore don't want it to be an option to kill that life. I think the pro-life stance is pretty simple actually. Here is a life; don't kill it. My general feeling is that life begins at conception. Meaning that outside of intervening forces, that thing is going to grow into a baby. That's just the line that feels right to me. I understand the science that says it is not a human until...well, ok I don't actually understand the science, but that's because it is irrelevant to me. You had to do something to stop the glob from becoming a baby and I'm not comfortable with that. Masturbation and protected sex doesn't rise to that level.

[DJ Vu 176]

Oh shit, I think I just took a stance on something.That wasn't supposed to happen!

[iZuma 764]

yeah, if you believe that human life begins at conception, then saying you shouldn't kill that life isn't exactly government overreach. that's actually near the tippy top of things they're supposed to do.

[mrdannyg 274]

Thanks for the answers everyone. So I am not wrong to consider the most common and strongest objection to abortion is "life begins at conception?" To be clear, I consider an anti-abortion stance to be a very reasonable position of you assume life begins at conception.I can't believe I made DJ Vu take a stance, especially one that is admittedly non-scientific!For those of you who don't live life according to your personal interpretation of whichever vague thousand year old rules are convenient, how do you rationalize allowing your feelings override the science of scientists*?*I'm sure I sound judgmental here, which isn't my intention - I am non a science guy, and your feelings are as relevant as mine. And while science has not always been right, neither have 'feelings', amirite? As a stereotypical naive academic liberal type, if there's a scientific consensus on something, I consider my feelings on it to be irrelevant. Is that not the case with you guys?****I don't mean to imply that that is an untenable position - I mean, most of us naive academic liberal types are "convinced" by studies that the majority of us have never read...

[DJ Vu 176]

how do you rationalize allowing your feelings override the science of scientists*?

I'd have to read the scientific position about when life starts to offer some sort of rationalization. So if you have one handy and can link to it, I'll take a look.

[mrdannyg 274]

I'd have to read the scientific position about when life starts to offer some sort of rationalization. So if you have one handy and can link to it, I'll take a look.

most of us naive academic liberal types are "convinced" by studies that the majority of us have never read...

but...science!i might find you something but i dont think i care enough about the opinion of a random person or two in a different country to do any research for you.

[DJ Vu 176]

I don't read your gambling thread anymore.

[brvheart 1,752]

For those of you who don't live life according to your personal interpretation of whichever vague thousand year old rules are convenient,

I take exception to you saying this, as it implies that as a Christian, I'm picking and choosing from the Bible what I believe. I'm not.

[mrdannyg 274]

I don't read your gambling thread anymore.

That's probably a good idea. I've barely posted there lately. Mainly, I just post bad nights often enough that if I do something good, it doesn't look like I only post the wins. I doubt I'll post in it all anymore, except for any occasional unusual situation that may pop up.

I take exception to you saying this, as it implies that as a Christian, I'm picking and choosing from the Bible what I believe. I'm not.

You're right, that is the implication. I disagree with your defense, despite having very little oversight over your life. Thankfully for both of us, I am not in a position to issue final judgment on your life, so I'm surprised my opinion means anything to you.

[hblask 1]

I'd have to read the scientific position about when life starts to offer some sort of rationalization. So if you have one handy and can link to it, I'll take a look.

I don't think there is a "scientific" position. It's a philosophical position. The definition of when a clump of cells becomes life is arbitrary. I mean, we know one minute before birth is a life, and we know one minute before conception is not. But far more has to go right than wrong for a fertilized egg to become a human.People like to say life begins at conception because it gives a nice easy answer. But if life begins at conception, shouldn't we have a tracking system for every egg and/or sperm to make sure that no lives are unaccounted for? If life begins at conception, shouldn't we hold funerals for fertilized eggs that don't implant properly? How can we ignore the millions of babies that just disappear that way each year?I'm not trying to argue a position here -- I'm pointing out that the "simple line" of conception isn't so simple if you really think about it. This is why there is no accepted defintiion for the start of life.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't think there is a "scientific" position. It's a philosophical position. The definition of when a clump of cells becomes life is arbitrary.

It's also irrelevant. A sperm is just as alive as an embryo. Rights are not assigned based on the simple factor of alive versus dead. Bacteria are alive.Rights are assigned based on mental status.

I mean, we know one minute before birth is a life, and we know one minute before conception is not. But far more has to go right than wrong for a fertilized egg to become a human.People like to say life begins at conception because it gives a nice easy answer. But if life begins at conception, shouldn't we have a tracking system for every egg and/or sperm to make sure that no lives are unaccounted for? If life begins at conception, shouldn't we hold funerals for fertilized eggs that don't implant properly? How can we ignore the millions of babies that just disappear that way each year?I'm not trying to argue a position here -- I'm pointing out that the "simple line" of conception isn't so simple if you really think about it. This is why there is no accepted defintiion for the start of life.

Yup. Two thirds of human embryos don't develop to birth. There's nothing magical about conception.

[phlegm 6]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be "pro-life", so excuse me if this is a dumb question. But what do "pro-lifers" say about extreme situations, like rape? Can rape victims have abortions?As a separate point, I find it surprising that the right is also often "pro-life". For a group that is for lessening government intervention, I don't understand why this group supports having the government determine such a critical thing. I can accept not wanting the government to pay for abortions (outside of rape and other extreme situations), but I don't understand how that side reconciles the very anti-freedom aspects of being "pro-life". Is it really just the idea that by having an abortion, you are denying the freedom of someone else (the future human), and so you are prevented from doing that (which is fine, I'm not pro-murder...except maybe phlegm). And if THAT is true, and science has already indicated that a few-week old child is not a human being, then how do these people rationalize things like (gasp) masturbation or protected sex? I don't mean to strawman the crap out of this, so please tell me if my strawmans are poor assumptions.

Such hatred from the left.