LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Forum for posts that are not hockey-related.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Pitt87 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:37 pm

MWB wrote:A duck and a deer? Weird.


but credible, amirite? :pop: :scared:
Pitt87
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,416
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Admin wrote:Rooting for the Flyers is not allowed here. Seriously.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:47 pm

So apparently the TX senate attempted for forge the results of the vote on the abortion legislation that was filibustered to death yesterday. Initial screen grabs of the roll showed timestamps of later votes as 6/26/2013 before magically changing some minutes later to show every vote as 6/25/2013. The timestamps are automatically generated, which means someone went into the TX senate's website code and manually altered the data. (For the uninitiated, the TX legislative session expired at midnight, so any actions taken after midnight are null and void.)
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:50 pm

columbia wrote:
Spoiler:
Image

The quotes around "gay" are a nice touch.

But this is indicative of my biggest pet peeve with people who go down that slippery slope argument. It shows the undercurrent of disgust towards homosexuals that they don't even necessarily think of them as human. Like how the next step is - obviously - polygamy. Which is such a canard that it doesn't even merit credible discussion.

shafnutz05 wrote:The rest of DOMA is still alive and well.

Yeah, but the only bit that's left is the prevention of making same-sex marriage portable. Granted, that's a big deal..... but I reckon this, too, will go by the wayside within the next 5 years. (If for no other reason than there might only be a few states remaining who don't recognize equal marriage rights)
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby pittsoccer33 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:53 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
Grunthy wrote:Serious question. Are marriage benefits provided by the govrrnment bc married people will be a net benefit to the government, i. e. they provide children? What benefit does a same-sex couple bring to the government?

Again I am asking a question not advocating one side or the other.

Not all heterosexual couples procreate, and same-sex couples can adopt.


There are literally thousands of laws that involve marriage and giving various benefits to married people that unwed Americans do not get. The most common are the benefits of jointly filing taxes. Then there are "benefits" such as tax payer funded pensions and healthcare.

I am of the belief that the government wrote laws this way to encourage a behavior - in this case marriage. That's why most of the tax law is the way it is - to encourage certain behaviors (education, home ownership, charitable giving) and to discourage others (gifting large sums of money, short term investing, smoking cigarettes)
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,756
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:56 pm

pittsoccer33 wrote:I am of the belief that the government wrote laws this way to encourage a behavior - in this case marriage. That's why most of the tax law is the way it is - to encourage certain behaviors (education, home ownership, charitable giving) and to discourage others (gifting large sums of money, short term investing, smoking cigarettes)


Being productive and earning a decent income... :)

Spoiler:
Sorry, I just had to be a smart ass
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:57 pm

tifosi77 wrote:So apparently the TX senate attempted for forge the results of the vote on the abortion legislation that was filibustered to death yesterday. Initial screen grabs of the roll showed timestamps of later votes as 6/26/2013 before magically changing some minutes later to show every vote as 6/25/2013. The timestamps are automatically generated, which means someone went into the TX senate's website code and manually altered the data. (For the uninitiated, the TX legislative session expired at midnight, so any actions taken after midnight are null and void.)


So the controversial measure that the American hero Wendy Davis filibustered was the 20 week abortion ban? Geez.

My wife will be 20 weeks on Friday. Knowing what I know now, I cannot fathom how someone could choose to terminate at that point or after. I've felt the baby kicking for Christ's sake. You're not talking a sack of cells at this point, you are talking a living, breathing and conscious thing.

I know I'll never win over the "woman's right to choose" argument, but there is something positively macabre to me about seeing the way Davis is being hailed as a moral crusader. Watching my own child develop before my very eyes, abortion even after the first trimester becomes pretty much indefensible to me. Late-term abortions (20 weeks or later) are a hideous and disgusting practice, and it sickens me to see Davis celebrated by the left.

Disclaimer: danger to the mother, other exceptions, etc
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,557
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Grunthy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:05 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
Grunthy wrote:Serious question. Are marriage benefits provided by the govrrnment bc married people will be a net benefit to the government, i. e. they provide children? What benefit does a same-sex couple bring to the government?
I am asking a question not advocating one side or the other.

Not all heterosexual couples procreate, and same-sex couples can adopt.



i am well aware not all procreate. an to be honest i dont think you should get marriage benfits if you dont by choice. and adopting does not provide a net benefit for marriage to the gov beyond the credit you already get for adopting.
Grunthy
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby ExPatriatePen on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:09 pm

Grunthy wrote:... a net benefit to the government...


Phrasing it this way rankles me.

If you had said "... a net benefit to our society..." I wouldn't feel the same way.

The government should be there for the people, not the other way around.
ExPatriatePen
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 22,691
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: Source, Destination, Protocol, Port, size, sequence number, check sum... Yep, that about covers it.

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Hockeynut! on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:12 pm

Grunthy wrote:
i am well aware not all procreate. an to be honest i dont think you should get marriage benfits if you dont by choice. and adopting does not provide a net benefit for marriage to the gov beyond the credit you already get for adopting.


I think you should get benefits if you choose not to procreate. Seriously, why should we encourage people to keep pumping out children when there is a dearth of resources, jobs, etc?
Hockeynut!
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 5,059
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:55 am

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Grunthy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:13 pm

ExPatriatePen wrote:
Grunthy wrote:... a net benefit to the government...


Phrasing it this way rankles me.

If you had said "... a net benefit to our society..." I wouldn't feel the same way.

The government should be there for the people, not the other way around.


im saying in a pure financial/tax sense.
Grunthy
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby pittsoccer33 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:15 pm

Hockeynut! wrote:
Grunthy wrote:
i am well aware not all procreate. an to be honest i dont think you should get marriage benfits if you dont by choice. and adopting does not provide a net benefit for marriage to the gov beyond the credit you already get for adopting.


I think you should get benefits if you choose not to procreate. Seriously, why should we encourage people to keep pumping out children when there is a dearth of resources, jobs, etc?


And by and large the educated and successful are having far fewer children than those at the other end of the socio-economic scale.

My friends and I are all around 30 give or take. Most are married, one has a child. No one else is remotely interested.
pittsoccer33
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,756
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 2:06 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:36 pm

shafnutz05 wrote:Knowing what I know now, I cannot fathom how someone could choose to terminate at that point or after.

*******

Disclaimer: danger to the mother, other exceptions, etc

Roughly the 20 week mark is the first point at which many terminal birth defects will be detectable. Like the fetus doesn't have a brain, or the mother's water breaks in the sixth month and doesn't rebuild, or any number of conditions that make the fetus completely non-viable. These new pieces of legislation - in TX and about half a dozen other states - do not carve out exceptions for those cases. Which means that a mother will be required by law to carry such a pregnancy to full term and deliver a stillborn baby. Nor do the new bills/laws carve out exceptions for rape and incest victims. These acts are not about preserving the sanctity of human life, they are punitive measures against women.

Less than 2% of all abortions take place after the 20th week, and in the majority of cases they are medical exigencies, not matters of the idea of child rearing suddenly becoming too inconvenient for the mother.

And that's all before you get to the Supreme Court precedent that abortion cannot be banned at all until a fetus is viable.... which is a determination made on a case-by-case basis by the ObGyn and which rarely happens before week 24 or 25.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Troy Loney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:40 pm

tifosi77 wrote:
shafnutz05 wrote:Knowing what I know now, I cannot fathom how someone could choose to terminate at that point or after.

*******

Disclaimer: danger to the mother, other exceptions, etc

Roughly the 20 week mark is the first point at which many terminal birth defects will be detectable. Like the fetus doesn't have a brain, or the mother's water breaks in the sixth month and doesn't rebuild, or any number of conditions that make the fetus completely non-viable. These new pieces of legislation - in TX and about half a dozen other states - do not carve out exceptions for those cases. Which means that a mother will be required by law to carry such a pregnancy to full term and deliver a stillborn baby. Nor do the new bills/laws carve out exceptions for rape and incest victims. These acts are not about preserving the sanctity of human life, they are punitive measures against women.

Less than 2% of all abortions take place after the 20th week, and in the majority of cases they are medical exigencies, not matters of the idea of child rearing suddenly becoming too inconvenient for the mother.

And that's all before you get to the Supreme Court precedent that abortion cannot be banned at all until a fetus is viable.... which is a determination made on a case-by-case basis by the ObGyn and which rarely happens before week 24 or 25.


But that explanation doesn't fit the narrative...so it'll be ignored.
Troy Loney
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 28,921
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:10 am
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Grunthy on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:42 pm

i don't have a problem with abortion based off of cases like, danger to mother or incest. i do have a problem if it is terminating just because you made a bad decision. All decisions have an outcome, deal with it and learn from it.
Grunthy
AHL All-Star
AHL All-Star
 
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:08 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:47 pm

Grunthy wrote:
tifosi77 wrote:
Grunthy wrote:Serious question. Are marriage benefits provided by the govrrnment bc married people will be a net benefit to the government, i. e. they provide children? What benefit does a same-sex couple bring to the government?
I am asking a question not advocating one side or the other.

Not all heterosexual couples procreate, and same-sex couples can adopt.



i am well aware not all procreate. an to be honest i dont think you should get marriage benfits if you dont by choice. and adopting does not provide a net benefit for marriage to the gov beyond the credit you already get for adopting.

How and why does adopting not provide the benefit you assert?

If you assert that marriage benefits exist to encourage child rearing, and you think couples who chose not to procreate should not therefore be afforded marriage benefits, you are effectively arguing that such marriages should not exist at all. That's seriously odd proposition.

I would suggest you read the trial court opinion from Prop 8 which addresses these notions in part, and refutes them.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:50 pm

Troy Loney wrote:But that explanation doesn't fit the narrative...so it'll be ignored.


Your jerkoff comment is neither necessary nor warranted.

tif, I wasn't aware that these exceptions were not carved out. Obviously when we are talking fetal viability, it's a totally different can of worms. That certainly sheds some more light on it in my eyes.

My opinion still stands in the absence of those scenarios, but I'm able to see the issues that raises.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,557
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby tifosi77 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:55 pm

When you look at these laws, and the laws requiring women to undergo medically unnecessary procedures (trans-vaginal ultrasound..... was that a 70s supergroup?) prior to an abortion.... I mean, how can the GOP avoid being termed anti-women?

They have an immigration policy of "vote for me so I can deport your grandmother".... but it's not the policy, it's the way they communicate that policy. I would argue communicating that policy at all is the problem..... perhaps if they were a little less clear about their intentions they'd get further.
tifosi77
NHL Healthy Scratch
NHL Healthy Scratch
 
Posts: 14,085
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: White-Juday Warp Field Interferometer

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby obhave on Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:55 pm

One of the reasons people are hailing her as a hero, is not only because you cannot abort beyond 20 weeks without exception with this bill, it's because the failure of the bill keeps open abortions clinics. If the bill were to pass, it would have closed all but 5 of the abortion clinics in the state. Based on my friends opinions (protesters for planned parenthood), this is why they were very upset with the bill. It would virtually shut down safe abortions in the state.
obhave
AHL'er
AHL'er
 
Posts: 2,918
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:00 pm

I'm pretty unabashedly pro-life (I don't think this clashes with my libertarian philosophy on most other issues), but even I'm aware of the insanity when you start to talk about complications, fetal defects, etc. We have our 20 week ultrasound this Friday, and I have been beyond nervous thinking about it.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,557
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby shafnutz05 on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:03 pm

:lol:

Obviously opinions and times have changed, kind of funny that there is zero mention of the fact that he signed the bill in the first place.

President Bill Clinton released a statement, together with his wife Hillary Clinton, hailing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he signed into law in 1996.

"By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory," the Clintons' statement reads.

The statement makes no mention of their previous support for the law.
shafnutz05
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 60,557
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:10 pm
Location: Amish Country

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby PensFanInDC on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:46 pm

From January:



I can only assume they'd kick him in the nards today...
PensFanInDC
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 27,909
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:28 pm
Location: Fredneck

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby Gaucho on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:51 pm

Why did they refuse?
Gaucho
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 44,369
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Ignoranti

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby rasbatch on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:53 pm

shafnutz05 wrote::lol:

Obviously opinions and times have changed, kind of funny that there is zero mention of the fact that he signed the bill in the first place.

President Bill Clinton released a statement, together with his wife Hillary Clinton, hailing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill he signed into law in 1996.

"By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory," the Clintons' statement reads.

The statement makes no mention of their previous support for the law.

Zero mention? It's in the article you quote and I have read it myself and heard it mentioned multiple times.
nothing to see here.
rasbatch
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 2,133
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:05 am
Location: morgantown WV

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:54 pm

Yeah, that's just shad being shad.
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

Re: LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

Postby columbia on Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:55 pm

(Two) US bloggers banned from entering UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355
columbia
NHL Third Liner
NHL Third Liner
 
Posts: 51,888
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:13 am
Location: دعنا نذهب طيور البطريق

PreviousNext

Return to NHR

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


e-mail