Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[DJ]

Obviously you should not have extramarital sex, and when you're married it's your sacred duty to crank out as many kids as possible

[Vector]

One thing I would note here is the group claiming they just want to talk to women (as opposed to groups who go to court for the right to explicitly harass them?) are 'sidewalk counselors' whose goal is to talk women out of having abortions on the way in.

Problem is that these groups often overlap quite a bit more than the Supreme Court seems to think. Of course the harassers say "I just want to talk to them." That's what an abusive person does.

[Helgoland]

The site from palsch's link is awesome.

[palsch]

A lengthy look at Alito. I'd skip the first section. The part labelled A Straight Face is a quick attack on the Hobby Lobby ruling and putting it in the context of other rulings he has handed down. But then it gets interesting. It looks at his record as the most reliably partisan justice.

They make a comparison I think is important to Thomas. Thomas is more conservative, but he is an ideological conservative who genuinely follows the (often horrible) places his reading of the Constitution leads him. Alito doesn't have that. The most apt headline for his decision in Hobby Lobby (and much of his record so far) so far would be "conclusory assertions and results-oriented reasoning". Even the attempts to make the decision narrow seems to have been a defence against this, an acknowledgement that the precedent set might not be good when applied elsewhere. We saw this before with Bush v. Gore.

I generally consider Scalia as bad, and he is definitely more outspoken and arguably influential in his pseudo-ideology, but Alito seems to take the win statistically.

[Angle]

One thing I would note here is the group claiming they just want to talk to women (as opposed to groups who go to court for the right to explicitly harass them?) are 'sidewalk counselors' whose goal is to talk women out of having abortions on the way in.

If by "talk", you mean "Harrass and Intimidate", then sure.

[scriver]

because one hurts people and the other hurts corporations

and corporations in your american world are more valuable than people

Now, now, that's simply not true. In the US corporations are people. That are more valued than certain other kinds of people

[palsch]

If by "talk", you mean "Harrass and Intimidate", then sure.

I was going to go with this link. Especially the links within to clinic escort accounts.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

If by "talk", you mean "Harrass and Intimidate", then sure.

I was going to go with this link. Especially the links within to clinic escort accounts.

Articles like this bring out all sorts of people who shouldn't be in society.

[Angle]

You mean the comments? See, I'd actually disagree with you. Those are just people who have little to no idea how to communicate effectively in an internet argument- You know, just like 90% of everyone on the internet. They're no worse (or at least, not THAT much worse) at it than GreatJustice or mainiac, or GavJ earlier, for that matter, and don't think that any of them "shouldn't be in society."

What we really need is an ongoing attempt to educate people on how to effectively argue over the internet. And perhaps a standardized format for boiling arguments down to the essentials, so that they can be easily grasped.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You mean the comments? See, I'd actually disagree with you. Those are just people who have little to no idea how to communicate effectively in an internet argument- You know, just like 90% of everyone on the internet. They're no worse (or at least, not THAT much worse) at it than GreatJustice or mainiac, or GavJ earlier, for that matter, and don't think that any of them "shouldn't be in society."

Doesn't mean their opinions are less inflammatory and based on fear mongering

"In my opinion you're a murderer because you're murdering your baby because I love life and you shouldn't have sex you whore" isn't a very valid opinion

[Angle]

They're arguments ARE inflammatory and ARE at least somewhat based on fear-mongering, I'll give you that.

Also, I need to edit my posts before I post them, not after. 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'll boil down the anti-abortion argument then: If you get pregnant your womb and embryo now belongs to the government until you birth it, then it's your responsibility even if you're woefully unprepared to take care of and support a child.

[Sergarr]

I'll boil down the anti-abortion argument then: If you get pregnant your womb and embryo now belongs to the government until you birth it, then it's your responsibility even if you're woefully unprepared to take care of and support a child.

Does they say anything about father's responsibility for all of this? Or is it always considered "her fault"?

[Angle]

I'll boil down the anti-abortion argument then: If you get pregnant your womb and embryo now belongs to the government until you birth it, then it's your responsibility even if you're woefully unprepared to take care of and support a child.

Well, that's how it looks to me too, I'll admit. I'm not sure stating it like that is going to do much in the way of convincing people, though...

Does they say anything about father's responsibility for all of this? Or is it always considered "her fault"?

Not usually. We do have a system in place that requires men to make child support payments, though they don't usually amount to much. Not that that placates the MRA's in the slightest...

[Descan]

Anti-abortion activists would have a lot more credibility re: "It's a human life and it's murder!" if they displayed the same concern for people after birth and the mothers themselves as they do the fetuses.

I'm sure there are those who do, I think I've even heard of a few, but they're drowned out by the fuckwads. :v