Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Trump setting up his donation sites as auto recurring donations, with the opt out options hidden below layers of pages. Opt in and hidden auto doubling of donations auto checked by the sites.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-steered-supporters-unwitting-donations-142130038.html
530,000 refunds for $64.3 million. More examples of how Trump is just griffting his followers.
That long? We got the Pfizer and our second shot is in middle of April. So hopefully by the end of April we can have dinner with the in laws again.
Ohio, where I live, just announced that by the end of March everyone will be allowed to sign up for the shot. That means by Memorial Day all of the family should be through the protocol and we can have a small cook out at my place.
They are the mother, or they're not. If they are, abortion is just elective surgery on your own body. If they're not, then they're a foreign presence in the body.
I believe that this is the fundamental premise behind your general position, and as such it is a syllogism that is non-functional. You have a loose term "foreign" being introduced without definition, and actually "presence" is also a peculiar and probably misleading word as well. You may not know it, but by the terms you're using in this proposition you are setting up a circular axiom that will serve to establish the point you are trying to make in the first place. Change some terms in your axiom, for instance "If they're not, then they're a new and unique person totally dependent on their creator", and suddenly the axiom would appear to lead to totally new conclusions. Watch out for creating an argument structure whose only purpose is to prove a point you already believe.
The magic words for me are, "Are we forcing a sapient human being into a parasitical relationship against their will?"
I agree that these are magic words, in that you have conjured them up using your own powers. I understand the argument completely, but am routinely astounded at how someone with this view cannot also see the possibility that the 'parasite' may be entitled to human rights. It's fine to acknowledge both sides and choose - perhaps on aesthetic grounds - to prefer the rights of the mother. But the re-definition of human into parasite is a complete dodge of the (potential) issue.
I'm not trying to address the personhood question here, because frankly that is boiling down in America to little more than faith vs faith. In one case, faith in one kind of common sense (i.e. that a person has to look like a bona fide person to count as a person) versus another kind of common sense (i.e. that we should not judge a person by his/her level of development, and that personhood is not a privilege granted as an anniversary present). Ironically both sides also argue that science is 'on their side', even though of course it does not take sides because science is not a person with an opinion. Anyone can create moving goalposts and say that personhood requires brain waves, science says that brainwaves start at X age, therefore science is ok with early term abortion. But the error of this type of argument should be painfully evident. Likewise arguments about heartbeat, human-like appearance, birth itself, or even technical minutiae such as the timing of implantation; each of these are arbitrary sign posts that due to a person's ego he has decided this criterion makes the most sense, therefore becomes some kind of formal definition of personhood, and will hang their hat on that even though in principle lives may be at stake.
But here we go again, at 20 weeks a fetus would look like a human baby(albeit a very small one) if delivered. It also has a chance of surviving into (somewhat) normal infancy, albeit a very poor chance. Once you get to 24 weeks, the chances of surviving without long term health consequences increase considerably.
That is part of my issue with a number of the pro-abortion activists. If that fetus had been delivered under any condition except an abortion procedure, that infant becomes a human being entitled to a list of rights, and charges of murder or malpractice if deliberately killed.
But by some magic handwaving, they can terminate that same fetus by any number of means because of where it is, or more importantly, where it isn't.
If these people are being consistent, either killing that delivered infant should be legal as "a post-birth abortion" option, or killing a fetus after achieving that level of development is infanticide, and an act of murder.
I'm not as hopeful as you, but I would be overjoyed if Roe and Casey were overturned. They are both horrible rulings contrary to reason, contrary to the natural law, and without any basis in the Constitution. The child is a child. We cannot kill children because we find them inconvenient or a burden. Abortion is the modern political equivalent to slavery: somehow there are two sides and somehow both sides have influence over people's minds, when the "pro-choice" side (much like the pro-slavery side) is completely wrong and abhorrent in their beliefs. History will eventually (and rightly) look back at our age and say "how were they so barbaric". You are on the wrong side of this issue, and it stains your hands with blood.
That was a valid talking point right up until the companies received massive amounts of government funds to put infrastructure in for those rural communities and then they didn't.
You're shocked by this? Government graft and corruption never went away, and the Democrats, who funded most of that, are some of the worst offenders. Rural areas are slowly getting brought up to speed, but it isn't the major telecoms doing it. It's local small/regional operations(at the stat level, not national) that are making it happen. And government regulations and subsidies on the matter complicate things nearly as much as they help at this point.
I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?
Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.
You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.
I get high speed unlimited home broadband over here for $30 a month. How ya'll comparing under Comcast or Cox?
Edit - I'm in a place where the currency is worth more then the US dollar. No excuses there.
You also live in a place where more people live within 200 miles of you than do within 200 miles of any arbitrary point in the US which isn't also within 150 miles of a port capable of handling either barges or ships.
That might be a good reason for why people in remote Montana have expensive internet, but not people in Austin Texas. That said, most urban areas have multiple choices and competion. They are all roughly $50/month, which isn't really some kind of terror.
That is why I am surprised that Republicans do not support more immigration from Latin countries. They would seem to be a very good fit for what they stand for. Family, hard work, religion.
I would say if the Repubs were not following the racist part of the party by being against anyone brown entering the country, they would win 75% of the Latin vote.
> Wayward Son
"You're afraid that some illegal immigrant might give you the virus?"
I mean I've explained it before so the problem is encouraging these mass migrations right now the way Biden is doing is the exact opposite of what the scientists and healthcare professionals say we need to do to combat the virus. I thought those were the people we were supposed to be listening to but apparently we just ignore them when their advice is politically incorrect just like the BLM protests. Now of course I'm opposed to illegal immigration anyway, and abuse of the asylum claims system as well, and I don't deny that, but the point is that this is a particularly bad time to resume encouraging it.
And this isn't just about it being brought here either, although of course there is that. But it's also about it being carried from one end of the Americas to the other and spread everywhere in between. If a dangerous variant happens to arise in someone but they are not traveling around so much then there's a much better chance of it dying out, but with everyone going all over the place and meeting thousands of people along the way those variants are allowed to spread. And not just the more dangerous and transmissible variants but the regular old virus itself. And who is to say that encouraging all of this migration right now is even the best thing for people who are suffering? It may well be that while traveling across two continents and spreading the virus to various people who are also struggling, we end up taking in a hundred thousand people while getting another hundred thousand or more across Latin America killed by the virus who otherwise might have dodged it long enough for them to get vaccinated in a few more months or protected by others who are vaccinated. Remember how this all started? Travelers. And it doesn't matter if you're going to a conference, a ski resort, taking a cruise vacation, or you are traveling because of gang violence or lack of jobs or even lack of food. It matters to us of course but it doesn't matter at all to the virus.
I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.
Just like the masks are pretty easy to understand too.
But people often just don't want to admit the obvious when it conflicts with their emotions.
It's not about making it personal like you're afraid some illegal is going to personally infect you or is going to personally take your job away. It's about policy and the big picture. It's about should we have limits based on our needs and safety and how many people we can handle coming in at a time or do those not matter and the only limit is based on how much poverty and hardship there is in the world because if that's the limit then for all practical purposes there is no limit and the kicker is when our kind-hearted policies end up doing more harm than good.
Way too early.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/03/02/abbott-hints-at-exciting-news-tuesday-that-could-include-rollback-of-texas-covid-19-restrictions/
We should wait at least until after everyone who wants a vaccine can get one and it has time to go into effect especially with the mask mandate.
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.
That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not. It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members. But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee? That's not even silence.
Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?
Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")
And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.
You've all but admitted how your business works and how far their avoidance is. Thanks! Really let's us have a better grasp on your arguments bout the Rona.
Or not. Maybe? Eh. It'll come out eventually and I'll see it on the other end.
Not really sure what any of this means. Many businesses that do involve a high degree of people close to each other (like standing behind a cash in a store) obviously could not social distance while maintaining the same work methods. It is possible to make concerted efforts to modify or renovate these practices, and I doubt that most types of business cannot avoid close social contact. Whether it requires special training from management to find a way to do it is another story.
Social distancing and masks are complementary. There are absolutely times where it's impossible to social distance even for short periods of time: for example, in the case where someone needs to work in the presence of others. It's not either/or, and neglecting mask use at this point in time will significantly aggravate the current situation.
What do you mean "needs" to work in the presence of others? There are a few situations where it is unavoidable to be within 6 feet: for instance movers lifting a heavy object together. But in most cases I doubt there is any need at all to be within 6 feet. In most cases I suspect that breaking social distance is a result of not feeling like going through the often arduous step of establishing how to do things without coming near each other. Schools involving young children are an exception to what I'm saying because obviously they just don't understand.
Americans. Entertaining the rest of the world since 1776.
Gotta refer to your hated enemy as "The Honorable Gentleman from such and such," in chambers, otherwise they're planting bombs.
Or just beating you senseless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_SumnerQuoteThe Caning of Charles Sumner, or the Brooks–Sumner Affair, occurred on May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate chamber, when Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to attack Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely criticized slaveholders, including a relative of Brooks. The beating nearly killed Sumner and it contributed significantly to the country's polarization over the issue of slavery. It has been considered symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse" and the use of violence that eventually led to the Civil War.
Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.
I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership. Take a look at some of the names? Ever heard of any of them? When is the last time they've been in the news? Never. She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership.
Could House Republicans do more? Sure. But they havn't. If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House. Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled. That's not just a Republican thing. Want her expelled? Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her.
I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.
That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not. It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members. But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee? That's not even silence.
Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?
Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.
That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not. It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members. But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee? That's not even silence.
You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate?I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.
