BANGS
Banned
That is your belief. Congratulations! You figured it out!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trump's first year as a president
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
Havoc2049
Member
This article is horrible and wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny. Ya, it is the Border Patrol who "robbed, battered, or murdered nonviolent people", not the criminal organizations and gangs who deal in kidnapping, human trafficking, narcotic trafficking and organized crime in these sometimes full on failed narco-states in Latin America. Also, in every community along the border in the United States, where there has been increased border security, those communities have seen dramatic benefits to the economy, security, quality of life and the environment has improved as well.
A perfect example of where increased border security has benefited border communities is the Eastlake, Otay Ranch and Otay Lakes communities of San Diego, California. Back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, the place was a chaotic disaster zone, where the Brown Field Border Patrol Station that patrolled that area would apprehend approximately 1,000 illegal immigrants in a 24 hour period (and approximately 500+ would succeed and make their way into the interior of the United States). The residents, ranchers, farmers and environment all suffered. The communities asked for and received increased border security in the form of more Border Patrol Agents and double fencing (far more effective than a single wall). Now it is a beautiful and safe place to live and raise a family. The federal, state and local governments also came in, cleaned up the area and restored the environment to a much better state as well. I could go all along to communities along the southwest border, from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico and the story of quality of life improvements because of increased border security in these communities would be the same.
Present Day Otay Lake
Present Day Eastlake
There's a difference between voting for policies that will help everyone in the country, and voting for an obvious imbecile just so you can force your religious dogma on people who don't want anything to do with it.
Christian beliefs shouldn't be signed into laws and forced on people who disagree with them. Religion has no place in government imo.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
The only difference is perception...
Vicetrailia
Member
Please read the article before you call it horrible. It's not an article about how bad border patrol is, they just injected it in the end. I put a disclaimer about that quote for a reason you know. Also I'm not arguing against what you're saying, a lot of money was injected into those communities as a result of border security, safety and etc. The article is really just about the wall.
Last edited by a moderator:
appaws
Banned
Think about what you are saying. YOUR values are OK as the basis for votes, secular or whatever they are....but THEIR values are illegitimate as the basis for votes. Why should Christians not vote based on their own values? After all, they think they ARE voting for policies that will help everyone in the country, exactly the same as you do.
At the core, you are actually arguing for anarchism. Surprised? You are making it sound like laws that are "forced on people who disagree" are somehow illegitimate. That would mean that ALL law is inherently bad, as presumably someone disagrees with it and it is being forced on them. Laws are forced on people, even in a republic or democracy. That is the basis of what law is...things adopted that benefit the group, and are enforced with the force of the state, even on dissenters.
As a citizen of Kentucky, the ban on marijuana is "forced" on me, with penalty of law. If I violate it, I can even have my liberty taken away. I don't agree to that, I think it is incredibly stupid and pointless. But that does not make the law illegitimate, it just means that myself and people like me have to convince others of our point of view in a democratic form of government and change the law. If a majority of Christians plus their allies enact a law that YOU don't like...the exact same onus is on you in a democratic state, even if you disagree with the moral basis that they work from.
No, the difference is one is forcing people to adhere to laws derived from a religion, the other has nothing to do with religion.
Edit: for abortion specifically, giving women the right to choose benefits both Christians and non Christians. Christians are free to abstain from abortion, while non Christians can make a choice for themselves. Taking away a woman's right to choose is forcing her to live her life in accordance to someone elses religion. That's fucked up.
Last edited:
BANGS
Banned
I fail to see the difference. Ideology comes in all forms, not just religion...
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
I'm not going to comment on anything else besides the below, but I'm encouraged that there seems to be an equal representation of people on both sides of the political spectrum.
This is true for me. I started my political path as a pretty left leaning, Bernie Sanders loving person. The old neogaf and current reset have pushed me to center right. I'm still pretty open politically and can be convinced given the evidence, but listening to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, along with people like Dave Rubin, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elders, even someone like Joe Rogan, etc will make you think and question where you stand. Jimmy Dore, TYT (the info wars of the left), Kyle Kulinski are the main left talkers I know and they use much more emotion and less logic.
Shapiro literally destroyed Cenk when they debated, and that was debating Cenk's strong point of money in politics (which I kinda agree with him). Peterson destroyed Newman. It makes perfect sense why leftists don't want people to listen to people such as these two.
This is true for me. I started my political path as a pretty left leaning, Bernie Sanders loving person. The old neogaf and current reset have pushed me to center right. I'm still pretty open politically and can be convinced given the evidence, but listening to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, along with people like Dave Rubin, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elders, even someone like Joe Rogan, etc will make you think and question where you stand. Jimmy Dore, TYT (the info wars of the left), Kyle Kulinski are the main left talkers I know and they use much more emotion and less logic.
Shapiro literally destroyed Cenk when they debated, and that was debating Cenk's strong point of money in politics (which I kinda agree with him). Peterson destroyed Newman. It makes perfect sense why leftists don't want people to listen to people such as these two.
I fail to see any ideology other than religion making peoples decisions for them concerning bodily autonomy.
I would this kind of topic never with religion but more like people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. If you fucked up you should be to deal with it. I personally would put a kind of limit of abortions (of course not when the born child could be sick, disabled, was result of a crime etc). Furthermore I would ssuggest a kind of pychological meeting to explain what this means and why she wants to. Maybe you can even find solutions for the problems she has with a pregnancy. Same with couples. In the end the women should decide not the men but I still would suggest a meeting in which these Couples can talk with an expert if the man actually wants to keep it.
Last edited:
Hold up now. Jordan Peterson? Didn't he just catch heat for saying that feminists only support muslim people because of a female desire to be dominated by a man? That's the kind of thinking that makes you question where you stand? I'm all for a civil discussion here, but that is some straight up garbage bullshit and that dude can go fuck himself. Leftists don't want people to listen to assholes like Jordan Peterson because he perpetuates all the hate-justifying rhetoric that the alt-right gobbles up and parrots to eachother until their fingers are bleeding from typing "cuck" over and over again.
What do you mean, "if you fucked up?" Contraceptive measures are not 100% full proof. If you accidentally get pregnant you should have the option to abort it.
People always want to bring up "well, only if it was a rape, THEN abortion could be justified." Do y'all even have any idea how the judicial system works in this country? How do you prove a rape to get approval for an abortion? The vast majority of rapes don't result in any convictions. Assuming the woman can identify the rapist in the first place, getting a conviction takes way more than 9 months, sometimes years. You have to allow woman to get abortions at their discretion full stop. Conditional abortions are impossible to enforce.
Yeah instead they make a person Like Linda Sarasour a role model and inspiration for the Women's march. A women who said wanted to circumzize someones Vagina, who said that women in Saudi Arabia have 10 month maternity leave so they do not need a drivers license. Or the classical I support the Sharia announcements.
Furthermore the suff Peterson said is not wrong most of the time. I do not know about this phrase but I am very curious why the left who stands for equality sides with such a misogynistic religion as the Islam. Or celebrate wearing a hijab while women in countries like the Iran are forced to wear it or they will be arrested. So I can see even this point being plausible.
I will say this: Yes it is not everything is 100% foolproof but often this shit also happens because of a drunk night, the spur of moment etc. And again I learned to deal with this and I am responsible for my life. In my opinion it is way more grey than either or just lke everything in Life.
Last edited:
So what if it happens because of a drunk night? A drunk couple has sex and the condom breaks, or they forget to use one, why can't they get an abortion? They need to be punished for getting drunk and having sex? Punished by being forced to raise a child for 18 years that they have no means of supporting?
It's the decision of a woman, straight up.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Men needs to have rights that allow them to decided if they want to be a dad and support a child or not.
It's not the mans body, so no they don't.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Why shouldn’t the man get the same choice as a woman
I see it as both. Another example. Women gets pregnant and wants to keep it. Men does not. So what now? When she keeps it he also have to pay for the kid even if he did not want it. He HAS to take responsibility for his actions.
Because the man isn't having the baby. Pregnancy has a lot of risks associated with it. Why does a man get to dexide that now a woman has to go through all of that? Many months of stress, not being able to work, hormonal imbalances, risk of death, stretch-marks, post-partem depression, etc. It' her body, her choice.
It's the woman's choice. That's on him. That would be a consequence of his action based on the societal contract he has entered into, which is far different than the government punishing everybody in an avoidable situation that has now been made unavoidable.
Last edited:
NO. If the women wants to keep it and the man does not she should cover the cost not him. Furthermore there are also many cases in which the women tricks the men into all this.
I love how men has nothing at all to say but only good for paying. Thats not equality in my opinion.
Aaain this is something she needs to accept. Nothing in life comes without consequnces. You can not have eveything you want all the time. But In your opinion women should men should not.I call this sexist.
Last edited:
First of all, the man has to cover the costs too. period. When you have sex with somebody, you know that there is a chance of pregnancy. If that's not something you can accept, don't have sex. Abortion is a procedure that has a lot of consequences as well, and it's not something women take lightly. If you're in a relationship and neither of you want children, abortion is always an option. If you have a drunk shitty one night stand and the girl wants to keep it, guess what, you're a dad. The difference is the government shouldn't get to make that decision for a woman, and you MOST CERTAINLY shouldn't get to make that decision.
Saying that a man has a right to force a woman to get an abortion, or that no women can have a right to an abortion are both instances of forcing a person to go through with extensive, life-altering medical procedures against their will.
I Am not saying the man should force a women to have an abortion. I am saying he should not pay for it. And your first sentence is the exact same thing I said. YOU have to take responsibility for your actions but to you that only means for men.
Last edited:
No. If a woman decides to keep the child, she is taking responsibility as well. For 18 years. Same as the man. She gets to make that decision because it his HER body that these conditions, and medical procedures will be affected by.
And my first sentence was not the same thing you said. I said a man needs to take responsibility if the woman decides to keep it. Your implication was that we should let the government force everyone to take responsibility, even when abortion is a solution that the man and the woman both want.
Last edited:
Musky_Cheese
Banned
No. The reasons you give for why a man has no choice is the same for why women shouldn’t have a choice. Do you not see the double standard.
Then she should also pay for it. Again Forcing men to pay even if they did everything to eleminate the chances were tricked etc. even though it would ruin them etc. is not acceptable either. And as I said before. One or two times yes but even then you should have consulting talks with an expert to maybe solve worries bring solutions or if one wants to keep it and one does not to finde an acceptable solution.
And for the trickery I know such a situation in my Family.
Last edited:
There is no double standard. The man isn't the one having the baby, he doesn't get to decide which medical procedure the woman will undergo. Her options are either A) Abortion, which is a really tough decision, and can affect someone for the rest of their lives, and also carries it's own complications. Or B) have a baby, which is also a medical procedure with many complications, that will affect her for the rest of her life. You don't get to choose what happens to her body, she does. That's not a double standard.
Where are you from where women don't also pay for their children? Even in cases where the couple is separated, and the man is paying child support, she is still paying as well. Forcing men to pay is right, regardless of the situation. He had a hand in it, knew the risks, and since the woman gets to decide what happens to HER FUCKING BODY, he needs to accept whatever she chooses.
If a woman "tricks" a man, then that's still on him. At the end of the day, he made his decision to put his penis inside of her vagina and ejaculate. If we absolve all men from the responsibility of paying for their children, regardless of the situation, who the fuck is gonna pay for these kids? The government? Not a chance, especially with a current political party in charge that wants to cut the shit out of medicare and wellfare programs.
Last edited:
First of all IS THIS A JOKE? Please tell me if this is a joke. ...
The men did not force his penis into her vagina according to censent he was INVITED. So no I am sorry. The same goes for women if they do not want to get pregnant use a vibrator. Done. Men or women need to take responsibilities for their actions and not only the men. But yeah I can clearly see a very sexist double moral undertone in these sentences. Good that we talked about it.
Secondly: In Germany the men has to pay a certain percentage of his wage. And the only way out of it is to become unemployed. Furthermore Everyone who has a child in Germany gets Child support which varries by the amount of children you have.
Last edited:
Musky_Cheese
Banned
They’re both becoming parents. The idea that only one party gets to decide if they want to is absurd.
First of all, this Thread is not about Germany, it's about the USA. I didn't say he forced his penis in her, but he knew the risks involved. So did the woman. If both parties consent, and there's a kid, that's that. It's not some get out of jail free situation for the man and the woman can just go fuck herself if she wants to keep the child. The man and the woman both take responsibility, unless the woman wants an abortion, in which case, problem solved. If she doesn't want an abortion, he needs to help support the child.
Beyond a moral obligation to support the child, he needs to for the good of the kid. Do you fucking know how much day care costs in the US? It can be like 500 a week. If you make around $30,000 a year, which is around the median income for the entire country, that's your whole paycheck. Government assistance only goes so far.
I'm assuming since you're all for men being able to fuck off and do whatever without having to pay for their children, you also support raising all taxes SIGNIFICANTLY to pay for free child-care, extended maternity-leave, and a very substantial increase in wellfare and foodstamp programs to help account for the 10's of millions of fatherless children who are now only being supported by the income of a single mother? right?
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Interesting way to put it... being able to fuck off.
Opportunity for both individuals to decide if they want to be parents. I would say it that way
Hmmm, which party has to undergo complicated, high-risk medical procedures on their own bodies? A man doesn't get to tell a woman what medical procedures to have done on them.
No I am for equality and both parties take the responsibility. And Abortion should not a get out of jail card either. Both needs to decide and both have to take the risk when they want to have sex. And If the women wants to keep the child while the men does not she should pay for it. You give women a HUGE advantage. And even if she treats the child like shit the men has almost no chance to get the child through court as well.
Then maybe she should use instead a vibrator than a penis
Last edited:
Musky_Cheese
Banned
I don’t believe I said a man should???
But a woman should be able to tell a man if he gets to be a parent or not. They both should get the ability to decide for themselves.
Dude, I don't even care if I get banned for this, hopefully not, as I think this place really needs people who aren't despicable shit heads, otherwise it will just keep circling the drain with people boasting in 4 posts a day about how "we defeated the echo chamber"
Fucking re-evaluate yourself. I used to think along the same lines as a couple of you. I don't anymore, because I informed myself about reality. Obviously abortion is a touchy subject, but it's SUPER FUCKING OBVIOUS that a woman should have final say over a man. IT'S HER FUCKING BODY! If you were the one who had to give birth or have your insides scooped out, I bet you would change your tune real fucking quick.
Of course you'll say, "no, if I was a woman I would feel the same, lots of women agree." All of those women are assholes, and you're just straight up ignorant.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
I’ll say this calmly
Nowhere in my post did I say a man should decide what happens to a woman’s body. At all. Not once.
If a woman decides to not have a baby, she has a choice. If a man is to become a father, he should have that choice. If that woman, knowing that he won’t be a father and still wants to have the child... her choice.
See all those choices. Equal choices for both parties.
I hope you aren’t banned. I won’t be reporting you, even for your childish insults.
I’ll also add that I won’t ignore you. No reason. You have your opinions. No echo chamber desire.
Last edited:
Yeah, you know better that to insult other members. Dial it down. If you can't then step away from the thread.
So you think if a woman wants to keep a child, and the man doesn't, he shouldn't have to pay to support that child.
Again, if that's your stance, surely you are in favor of vastly expanding wellfare and medicaid, raising taxes, extended paid maternity leave, and raisimg the minimum wage yes? Who else is going to pay for all the children who are unwanted by their fathers? It would be in the 10's of millions, and need billions of dollars of social wellfare programs to compensate for.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
Yeah sure. Equality
Mahadev
Member
rokkerkory
Member
Don Mcgahn just saved Trump’s ass we are learning tonight.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...l-russia.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...l-russia.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
Only the best decisions.
Musky_Cheese
Banned
It sounds more like McGahn is saving his own ass with this recent turn of events. I'm guessing he didn't want Trump to fire Mueller because of how bad it would look and is now realizing things are getting hotter and hotter and trying to look as good as possible.
Best decisions by a very stable innocent genius
Vicetrailia
Member
Must be hard to be Trump. Paranoid as shit from situations that he made the choice to create.
BANGS
Banned
You're not looking hard enough. Simplest and easiest example being there are those who promote abortion for non-religious reasons, deciding that an unborn child can be murdered. That's certainly a decision concerning bodily autonomy and making a decision for that baby...
appaws
Banned
But the unborn babies are not "free to abstain" from being dismembered, burned up with saline, or having their spinal cord clipped.
Anyway, your outdated arguments are moot anyway. We are winning this battle because of science and ultrasounds of unborn children. Everyone knows what that is in there, your euphemisms about "choice" and anti-Christian bigotry are not working as well anymore. Even as younger people have moved left on many social issues, they have become more pro-life. We shall overcome.
Trump has been good on this, even though some of it may just be pandering to the base of his party. He did say on Howard Stern that he was pro-"choice." But it is normal to shift on this issue. Reagan did, Clinton did, Jesse Jackson did, etc.