Obama judicial nominee blocked.

Chaingun81 said:

I completely and utterly disagree with everything you say 99% of the time and your avatar make me want to vomit,...

Click to expand...

I think my Avtar has pissed a number of individuals on here off. I am going to be changing it soon. I didn't think it would strike as many nerves as it has.

but I gonna have to say that I fully agree with the above. I'm very much on the conservative side from the fiscal standpoint and for most social issues, but abortion is not one of them. I do agree with the centiment above and I cannot understand why so many people cannot see that simple logic.

Click to expand...

With the exception of a couple of items regarding abortion, I would be fine with very tight restriction on abortion if the social net was there for these children that would be born into a parent-less world. I have four children, never once did my partner and I consider abortion. But the thought of them being without two loving parents, and being raised in an Institutional family just breaks my heart.

Seriously though, change your avatar. Whatever you think about Obama, he is just a President and not a Supreme Leader of some sort and posting pictures like that gives me a unpleasant taste of a totalitarian regime. Also, you do fully realize how 99% of people on this forum would react to that picture, so you putting it up may only mean looking for fight and argument which deserves no respect in my book.

Click to expand...

I am thinking about it as I stated before. He is just a President, but he is currently the President.

Nah, I post, and realize that many individuals are not going to agree with me. I don't have an issue with disagreements - I just figure it comes with being an independent thinker, just like other on here are.

I understand your disagreement and respect your right to have different views, but using Obama's picture for an avatar on a gun forum, is just picking a fight and that's just immature.

Click to expand...

I seriously looked high-and-low for a photo of Obama with a firearm in his hand, and could not find one. My Avtar will not change anything. People agree with me, disagree with me, hate me, want to kill me, wish me dead, or wish I would just close my account, but why would I do that? I OC/CC proudly, and so does my partner. We all can't agree on everything, especially the details of issues.

I was just thinking about this Avtar thing, and because you have been nice about it, I will change it. Don;t expect me to make a habit of this though *wink*

Chaingun81 said:

I completely and utterly disagree with everything you say 99% of the time and your avatar make me want to vomit, but I gonna have to say that I fully agree with the above. I'm very much on the conservative side from the fiscal standpoint and for most social issues, but abortion is not one of them. I do agree with the centiment above and I cannot understand why so many people cannot see that simple logic.

Seriously though, change your avatar. Whatever you think about Obama, he is just a President and not a Supreme Leader of some sort and posting pictures like that gives me a unpleasant taste of a totalitarian regime. Also, you do fully realize how 99% of people on this forum would react to that picture, so you putting it up may only mean looking for fight and argument which deserves no respect in my book.

I understand your disagreement and respect your right to have different views, but using Obama's picture for an avatar on a gun forum, is just picking a fight and that's just immature.

Click to expand...

In regards to abortion. I don't really care about it too much, but don't use my tax payer dollars to help you abort your kid. You were "responsible" enough to have sex, now you get to live with the consequences. Additionally don't ask me to help you out with raising it. If you can't handle raising the kid for whatever reason, give it up to adoption. And if you don't want to deal with these consequences then take steps to ensure you don't get pregnant. I don't care if that's birth control, abstinence, surgery, whatever. But if you get pregnant you deal with it without using TAX PAYER funds.

But instead people aren't forced to take responsibility for ones actions and just expect uncle Sam to step in and clean up their mess. And that's my issue. And its even worse with the poor who are slowly being turned into slaves of the government as they are slowly coming to rely on the government for everything and often they don't pay any net taxes and often can even get more money back than they pay.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I think my Avtar has pissed a number of individuals on here off. I am going to be changing it soon. I didn't think it would strike as many nerves as it has.

With the exception of a couple of items regarding abortion, I would be fine with very tight restriction on abortion if the social net was there for these children that would be born into a parent-less world. I have four children, never once did my partner and I consider abortion. But the thought of them being without two loving parents, and being raised in an Institutional family just breaks my heart.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm fiscally conservative and therefore I don't think there should be any social net for such support. Obviously, there are exceptions (i.e. orphans, etc.), but teenage drug addicts shouldn't be having children to send them for societal support. Having a child is a huge responsibility and people should treat it as such.

But incositencies and hipocrisy always bother me, and I do see hipocrisy in people being against abortions AND social programms for unwanted children at the same time, because it's either one or the other, and that's why I agreed with your point.

I'm not a big fan of abortion in general and don't think it's a good thing to do, but I wouldn't support any more legal restrictions than there already is, because I'm a libertarian before I'm a conservative...

Beretta92FSLady said:

I am thinking about it as I stated before. He is just a President, but he is currently the President.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. He is still an elected leader, not a perfect Supreme Being of some sort. I grew up in a communist country with a totalitarian regime and things like that always bother me. Display of support and bumper stickers with campain slogans is one thing, propoganda looking portraits is very different. After all, you wouldn't put a picture of your boss on your car, fridge and internet profile, even if you really like him, now would you? )))

Beretta92FSLady said:

I seriously looked high-and-low for a photo of Obama with a firearm in his hand, and could not find one.

Click to expand...

You would have to photoshop one. Seriously though, whatever you think about him, he is a typical anti-gun product of a big city political elite, just because he isn't pushing any major anti-gun legislation doesn't mean he became pro-gun, it just means that he ain't dumb and wants to get reelected. His true views can be seen from early in his career, when he wasn't refined enough to hide them.

You might want to find pictures with his offical presidential portrait and NRA logo saying "Firearms Salesman of the Year award", there is some healthy irony in it and it's not directly political.

Beretta92FSLady said:

My Avtar will not change anything. People agree with me, disagree with me, hate me, want to kill me, wish me dead, or wish I would just close my account, but why would I do that? I OC/CC proudly, and so does my partner. We all can't agree on everything, especially the details of issues.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but like I said - it's easy to predict what kind of reaction it would cause here and escalating the fight and looking for additional trouble is unnecessary. You can still be vocal about your positions, but do it where appropriate and not just to cause trouble.

Before you even registered here, there was a fellow called AWDStylez - he would join every thread with a political discussion and aggravate people to the limit. After a while it became obvious that he wasn't actually interested in the discussion, but rather wanted to cause trouble and get pleasure of being "the one against all". Eventually his behavior became so troll like, that moderators banned him, and believe me - I've been here for 5 years now, it takes a very special effort to get banned on this forum, moderators are very respectful of free speech.

Anyhow, you don't want to follow his steps. Have a discussion, disagree, argue with people, but don't argue for the sake of arguing. It never gets you anywhere.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I was just thinking about this Avtar thing, and because you have been nice about it, I will change it. Don;t expect me to make a habit of this though *wink*

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I do respect that.

I am not concerned about being banned from OC.

I figure that these topics are posted for discussion, and I take part in the discussion. If people don't like it they can either 'ignore' me, or, well, ignoring me is about all they can do, or engage in personal attacks, either way, that is their prerogative.

I admit that my political views are complicated, and seem to contradict themselves. I am just not a 'hard-line' type of person with regard to most things.

Aknazer said:

In regards to abortion. I don't really care about it too much, but don't use my tax payer dollars to help you abort your kid. You were "responsible" enough to have sex, now you get to live with the consequences. Additionally don't ask me to help you out with raising it. If you can't handle raising the kid for whatever reason, give it up to adoption. And if you don't want to deal with these consequences then take steps to ensure you don't get pregnant. I don't care if that's birth control, abstinence, surgery, whatever. But if you get pregnant you deal with it without using TAX PAYER funds.

But instead people aren't forced to take responsibility for ones actions and just expect uncle Sam to step in and clean up their mess. And that's my issue. And its even worse with the poor who are slowly being turned into slaves of the government as they are slowly coming to rely on the government for everything and often they don't pay any net taxes and often can even get more money back than they pay.

Click to expand...

I do agree with that 100%. I meant that I am not against abortion in general and certainly don't support government restrictions on it based on religious belives, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for them.

However, abortion is a lot cheaper than raising a child, so if someone's irresponsibility with sex caused them to get pregnant while not being able to support a child, I'd support their desicion to get an abortion, but they would have to pay for it. I agree that modern soceity doesn't promote personal responsibility nearly enough and way too many people grow up with no concept of what consequences mean.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I admit that my political views are complicated, and seem to contradict themselves. I am just not a 'hard-line' type of person with regard to most things.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to lecture or berate you for your politics anymore (I think we both know how the other feels), but I will make one more comment in that vein.

You seem to contrast your admitted independence with "hard-line"-toeing partisanites. While this is not inaccurate, it suggests that only partisan line-toeers are capable of internally consistent thought, or that internal inconsistency and self-contradiction are a natural result of rejecting the partisan paradigm. I believe this is misleading.

In my own case, my views are (I think) consistent, internally non-contradictory, and might even be described as following a "hard line". However, that line derives not from predetermined partisan groupthink, but from a rigorous application of a philosophical -- not strictly political -- premise. In my case, that premise is the "non-aggression principle".

What I'm not saying is that you ought to become a follower of the NAP (although I do think you and everybody else should). What I am saying is that internal consistency is a good thing, and that it is actually quite rare in politics (the only discernible internal consistency found amongst the mainstream left and right must be defined by partisan stereotypes, for example). I would politely suggest that perhaps a more rigorous from of philosophical analysis ought to be applied (what form that is remains up to you), and that any person who thinks as much as you evidently do can afford to achieve internal consistency, even if it means abandoning a few lesser conclusions in favor of more important and inflexible ones.

It seems to me that, for someone whose political conclusions are not spoon-fed, a lack of internal consistency derives from an unwillingness (partial, if not complete) to constantly reconsider one's past conclusions in light of present reasoning.

I frequently change my thoughts on an issue, so as to achieve internal consistency. While sometimes I am forced to abandon a view which was quite favorable to me emotionally, or which I had defended thoroughly in the past, I view the resulting discomfort as preferable to lacking logical internal consistency in my political views.

In fact, I believe, the farther someone's views become from the political mainstream, the more internal consistency becomes important (at least so far as convincing others goes), as it shifts the apparent source of one's conclusions from convenience and immediate emotional satisfaction, to careful thought and rigorous application of experience, reason, and principle (all of which are important).

Now, that did come across as a lecture (despite my best efforts), so I will merely say that it should be indisputable that every individual here has room for maturation of their political, social, and philosophical thought.

Chaingun81 said:

I do agree with that 100%. I meant that I am not against abortion in general and certainly don't support government restrictions on it based on religious belives, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for them.

However, abortion is a lot cheaper than raising a child, so if someone's irresponsibility with sex caused them to get pregnant while not being able to support a child, I'd support their desicion to get an abortion, but they would have to pay for it. I agree that modern soceity doesn't promote personal responsibility nearly enough and way too many people grow up with no concept of what consequences mean.

Click to expand...

My only issue with people paying for abortion is this. I have someone who is close to me. Their "bio mom" used abortion as her form of birth control. The only reason this person wasn't aborted was because of a comment "bio dad" said, and even then this person was put up for adoption because the "bio mom" had a change of heart but it was too late to get an abortion. While I won't go into how we know this, the point is that the mom never took responsibility for having sex. I don't really mind people having abortions, but not if they use it as birth control and sadly that is what people are starting to do.

So I guess its less an issue with abortion, and more of an issue with people abusing it to not take responsibility for their actions.

Chaingun81 said:

I do agree with that 100%. I meant that I am not against abortion in general and certainly don't support government restrictions on it based on religious belives, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for them.

However, abortion is a lot cheaper than raising a child, so if someone's irresponsibility with sex caused them to get pregnant while not being able to support a child, I'd support their desicion to get an abortion, but they would have to pay for it. I agree that modern soceity doesn't promote personal responsibility nearly enough and way too many people grow up with no concept of what consequences mean.

Click to expand...

Where does it stop then. I don't want to pay for you to get an abortion. I don't want to pay for you to get paid when you don't have a job. I don't want to pay LEO salary, many of you probably don't want to pay my salary. I don't want to pay the government assistance grants and scholarships they pay to "underprivledged." I don't want to pay to house and feed prisoners. I don't want to pay for maintaining and building roads.

There comes a point where Taxes are needed or els there would be absolute chaos. So how do we decide which ones are the important ones that do deserve taxpayer money?

~Devil's advocate.

Chaingun - After reading your last post, why did I get the impression you were trying to run off our liberal fellow or convince her to stop writing? I don't think I read anything when signing up that required everyone to agree on any subject, or hold any opinion or not speak about a certain side of an issue. I'm not sure what exactly you were getting at, but what does it matter if someone disagrees with everyone else all the time? Would you prefer everyone on the site just added short statements of agreement and no dissent to a particular view no matter the subject?

Aknazer said:

My only issue with people paying for abortion is this. I have someone who is close to me. Their "bio mom" used abortion as her form of birth control. The only reason this person wasn't aborted was because of a comment "bio dad" said, and even then this person was put up for adoption because the "bio mom" had a change of heart but it was too late to get an abortion. While I won't go into how we know this, the point is that the mom never took responsibility for having sex. I don't really mind people having abortions, but not if they use it as birth control and sadly that is what people are starting to do.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that banning (or further restricting) abortions has the effect of government forcing responsibility on people.

In fact, it is my experience that, while some people will never accept or exercise responsibility, for those who will it is best encouraged with a "hands off" approach, and the surest way to render responsibility irrelevant is to usurp it wherever possible.

Government is simply not positioned to force responsibility. While it is an appealing tool for the worry-minded who just can't wait for society to improve itself spontaneously (which it always has, for the record), it is an inefficacious tool if there ever was.

You friend's mom, for example, would be unlikely to respond in the desired fashion. I know this from experience; I dated a woman who was very similar in that regard, only she was subject to a prohibition of abortion -- not state-enforced, but a result of a "religion" which she didn't practice, but still allowed to dictate right and wrong (sometimes). She simply had unwanted kids. She didn't give all of them up for adoption, either. She instead subjected one to her poor parenting before abdicating her responsibility and letting someone else do the work (her son was lucky enough that there was such a someone). Thanks, catholicism!

I would suggest that aborting (or even better, giving up for adoption) an unwanted child is more responsible than having it and not raising it. I would further suggest that the latter is the inevitable result of government usurpation of responsibility, and that the best-yet option of her actually raising her kids was never on the table, and cannot be placed there by government prohibition (of abortion or anything else).

The worst thing you can do is make someone's decisions for them. If there is any hope of their exercising responsibility, they must first think and weigh the options. Again, some may never do this. But even more never will if that need to consider and weigh is obviated by preformed, spoon-fed, externally-rendered decisions.

Brion said:

There comes a point where Taxes are needed or els there would be absolute chaos.

Click to expand...

Operating from an assumed but unproved premise.

Brion said:

Where does it stop then. I don't want to pay for you to get an abortion. I don't want to pay for you to get paid when you don't have a job. I don't want to pay LEO salary, many of you probably don't want to pay my salary. I don't want to pay the government assistance grants and scholarships they pay to "underprivledged." I don't want to pay to house and feed prisoners. I don't want to pay for maintaining and building roads.

There comes a point where Taxes are needed or els there would be absolute chaos. So how do we decide which ones are the important ones that do deserve taxpayer money?

~Devil's advocate.

Click to expand...

By going back to the basics and only paying for mandatory services with federal funds. Let states and counties come up with other taxes for services they want to provide. But the issue is with the federal government overstepping their power and doing things that should be decided by local governments.

EDIT: Oh and some things like roads are "supposed" to be paid for with taxes relating to that service (such as the taxes on gas). If you don't use the service then you don't help pay for it. Of course we all know how well that actually works right now.

marshaul said:

Sure, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that banning (or further restricting) abortions has the effect of government forcing responsibility on people.

In fact, it is my experience that, while some people will never accept or exercise responsibility, for those who will it is best encouraged with a "hands off" approach, and the surest way to render responsibility irrelevant is to usurp it wherever possible.

Government is simply not positioned to force responsibility. While it is an appealing tool for the worry-minded who just can't wait for society to improve itself spontaneously (which it always has, for the record), it is an inefficacious tool if there ever was.

You friend's mom, for example, would be unlikely to respond in the desired fashion. I know this from experience; I dated a woman who was very similar in that regard, only she was subject to a prohibition of abortion -- not state-enforced, but a result of a "religion" which she didn't practice, but still allowed to dictate right and wrong (sometimes). She simply had unwanted kids. She didn't give all of them up for adoption, either. She instead subjected one to her poor parenting before abdicating her responsibility and letting someone else do the work (her son was lucky enough that there was such a someone). Thanks, catholicism!

I would suggest that aborting (or even better, giving up for adoption) an unwanted child is more responsible than having it and not raising it. I would further suggest that the latter is the inevitable result of government usurpation of responsibility, and that the best-yet option of her actually raising her kids was never on the table, and cannot be placed there by government prohibition (of abortion or anything else).

The worst thing you can do is make someone's decisions for them. If there is any hope of their exercising responsibility, they must first think and weigh the options. Again, some may never do this. But even more never will if that need to consider and weigh is obviated by preformed, spoon-fed, externally-rendered decisions.

Click to expand...

Please see my edit. It's less an issue with abortion itself and more with a lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

Aknazer said:

Oh and some things like roads are "supposed" to be paid for with taxes relating to that service (such as the taxes on gas). If you don't use the service then you don't help pay for it. Of course we all know how well that actually works right now.

Click to expand...

Private toll roads become increasingly attractive.

I've been on several. They are nice, well-paved, high speed limits, wide, abundant lanes. Good stuff.

And, although the taxes and fees are all well-hidden (compared to an overt toll), it's not like we actually pay any less for public roads. They cost what they cost. And on top of that, the government makes ample profit...

Even worse, we pay for all kinds of other crap with those inflated, hidden taxes and fees. Like police who make our roads more dangerous with heavy-handed enfarcement.

Aknazer said:

Please see my edit. It's less an issue with abortion itself and more with a lack of personal responsibility/accountability.

Click to expand...

I see that. And my post wasn't necessarily directed at you specifically. I was merely using your story as a springboard to a point I wished to make for the entire forum.

My post, also, is about personal responsibility. It, like yours, merely exists in the context of a tale about abortion.

marshaul said:

Private toll roads become increasingly attractive.

I've been on several. They are nice, well-paved, high speed limits, wide, abundant lanes. Good stuff.

And, although the taxes and fees are all well-hidden (compared to an overt toll), it's not like we actually pay any less for public roads. They cost what they cost. And on top of that, the government makes ample profit...

Even worse, we pay for all kinds of other crap with those inflated, hidden taxes and fees. Like police who make our roads more dangerous with heavy-handed enfarcement.

Click to expand...

I think things like the taxes on gas would work if it wasn't for our government just throwing it all into one pot. If they ONLY used the money from gas to pay for roads then I bet roads would be well funded and cared for. Instead they spread it around so that other improperly funded programs stay afloat and all programs suffer. Same thing happened to the original pot of money for social security.

Aknazer said:

I think things like the taxes on gas would work if it wasn't for our government just throwing it all into one pot. If they ONLY used the money from gas to pay for roads then I bet roads would be well funded and cared for. Instead they spread it around so that other improperly funded programs stay afloat and all programs suffer. Same thing happened to the original pot of money for social security.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

But how does one avoid the "one-pot" syndrome?

Aknazer said:

I don't really mind people having abortions, but not if they use it as birth control and sadly that is what people are starting to do.

So I guess its less an issue with abortion, and more of an issue with people abusing it to not take responsibility for their actions.

Click to expand...

I agree with that

Daylen said:

Chaingun - After reading your last post, why did I get the impression you were trying to run off our liberal fellow or convince her to stop writing? I don't think I read anything when signing up that required everyone to agree on any subject, or hold any opinion or not speak about a certain side of an issue. I'm not sure what exactly you were getting at, but what does it matter if someone disagrees with everyone else all the time? Would you prefer everyone on the site just added short statements of agreement and no dissent to a particular view no matter the subject?

Click to expand...

No, it's fine to disagree and I said that too. My point was that it's stupid to disagree just for sake of disagreement. Its a definition of trolling and a waste of time. For example you can go onto an atheist forum and start preaching religion. Or go onto a anti-gun forum and start preaching gun rights. I mean we are all adults here (supposedly) and we all (hopefully) understand the difference between having a disagreement and purposely picking a fight. There is a big difference.

marshaul said:

I would suggest that aborting (or even better, giving up for adoption) an unwanted child is more responsible than having it and not raising it.

Click to expand...

+100