PDA

View Full Version : ACLU: Good or bad?



Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 08:37 PM
Spinning this off from the shooting thread because I was afraid it would get to far off topic


ACLU is emphatic against the use of them.

I think the ACLU to be one of the most misunderstood organizations in the country.

They are all about individual liberty, privacy...and all opposed to govt. instrusion in our lives, Constitutionality of govt. actions....solid conservative/libertarian beliefs..yet conservatives hate them.

It's sort of like the GLBT classes at the College, I guess...."conservatives" have no problem using the govt. to impose their own preferences....they just don't like it when it's used for others.

While I don't agree with everything they do, obviously, on the balance, I think they are a good organization that supports and defends the Constitution and protects individual liberty. I'm a supporter and would be happy to carry the card. Mostly, they are a pain in the ass for the government.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 08:43 PM
Spinning this off from the shooting thread because I was afraid it would get to far off topic



I think the ACLU to be one of the most misunderstood organizations in the country.

They are all about individual liberty, privacy...and all opposed to govt. instrusion in our lives, Constitutionality of govt. actions....solid conservative/libertarian beliefs..yet conservatives hate them.

It's sort of like the GLBT classes at the College, I guess...."conservatives" have no problem using the govt. to impose their own preferences....they just don't like it when it's used for others.

While I don't agree with everything they do, obviously, on the balance, I think they are a good organization that supports and defends the Constitution and protects individual liberty. I'm a supporter and would be happy to carry the card. Mostly, they are a pain in the ass for the government.

The ACLU is definitely a good thing, or at least designed with good intentions. Just as with an "Union" out there today, they have lost a lot of their luster and, I think, it's mostly perception due to the media. For awhile, at least publicly, it seemed like they were involved in nothing but race related cases where they seemed to immediately take the side of minorities. Conservatives don't always take kindly to that.

Rainmaker
04-09-2015, 09:07 PM
Spinning this off from the shooting thread because I was afraid it would get to far off topic



I think the ACLU to be one of the most misunderstood organizations in the country.

They are all about individual liberty, privacy...and all opposed to govt. instrusion in our lives, Constitutionality of govt. actions....solid conservative/libertarian beliefs..yet conservatives hate them.

It's sort of like the GLBT classes at the College, I guess...."conservatives" have no problem using the govt. to impose their own preferences....they just don't like it when it's used for others.

While I don't agree with everything they do, obviously, on the balance, I think they are a good organization that supports and defends the Constitution and protects individual liberty. I'm a supporter and would be happy to carry the card. Mostly, they are a pain in the ass for the government.

The ACLU was founded as communist front group used to break down America's moral code. Unfortunately, they succeeded and today they are just a controlled opposition for the kleptocrats

Rainmaker
04-09-2015, 09:21 PM
The ACLU is definitely a good thing, or at least designed with good intentions. Just as with an "Union" out there today, they have lost a lot of their luster and, I think, it's mostly perception due to the media. For awhile, at least publicly, it seemed like they were involved in nothing but race related cases where they seemed to immediately take the side of minorities. Conservatives don't always take kindly to that.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

garhkal
04-09-2015, 10:05 PM
Spinning this off from the shooting thread because I was afraid it would get to far off topic



I think the ACLU to be one of the most misunderstood organizations in the country.

They are all about individual liberty, privacy...and all opposed to govt. instrusion in our lives, Constitutionality of govt. actions....solid conservative/libertarian beliefs..yet conservatives hate them.

It's sort of like the GLBT classes at the College, I guess...."conservatives" have no problem using the govt. to impose their own preferences....they just don't like it when it's used for others.

While I don't agree with everything they do, obviously, on the balance, I think they are a good organization that supports and defends the Constitution and protects individual liberty. I'm a supporter and would be happy to carry the card. Mostly, they are a pain in the ass for the government.

Most of what i have seen the ACLU do though, is rally against Christians. Such as in their support of Atheists and getting rid of 10 commandments from buildings etc. Rarely do i see them supporting Christians. Also i see them supporting Illegal immigrants a lot, rather than supporting the US Citizens the Illegals harm.
So to me they are more bad than good.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 10:12 PM
Most of what i have seen the ACLU do though, is rally against Christians. Such as in their support of Atheists and getting rid of 10 commandments from buildings etc.

What they are really doing though...is against the Government. It's getting 10 comandments from GOVERNMENT buildings.

The ACLU does not, to my knowledge, give two shits about how many commandments you put in your own buildings.

They support many Christians, as well, in their fight for liberty.


Rarely do i see them supporting Christians.

I'm gonna guess it's because rarely do you look outside of certain sources that want to portray Christians as victims in this country. I will say though, that the ACLU rarely gets media attention when they support Christians.


Also i see them supporting Illegal immigrants a lot, rather than supporting the US Citizens the Illegals harm.
So to me they are more bad than good.

I would have to see these cases...not sure what you're talking about.

Capt Alfredo
04-09-2015, 10:16 PM
Most of what i have seen the ACLU do though, is rally against Christians. Such as in their support of Atheists and getting rid of 10 commandments from buildings etc. Rarely do i see them supporting Christians. Also i see them supporting Illegal immigrants a lot, rather than supporting the US Citizens the Illegals harm.
So to me they are more bad than good.

Stupid ideas, not stupid people. Have to keep reminding myself.

garhkal
04-09-2015, 11:23 PM
I would have to see these cases...not sure what you're talking about.

I just did a quick search on Bing for "ACLU and illegal immigrants and got the following..

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/aclu-demands-religious-groups-provide-abortions-for-illegal-immigrants/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aclu-us-tough-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=18569230

That right there is what i was on about. They seem to spend a lot of time (and money) pushing to support Illegal immigration, rather than against them. Which to me is wrong since they are supposed to be for AMERICAN civil liberties.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 11:31 PM
Which to me is wrong since they are supposed to be for AMERICAN civil liberties.

Really?

So...when the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You don't believe that?

Sounds like you're advocating "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Americans are created equal and are endowed by their government with certain inalienable rights..."

I think that's where you and the ACLU disagree....the ACLU believes civil rights are for all people, not just for Americans...and that, even if the American government does not have an obligation to protect the civil liberties of aliens, it at least should NOT be the one violating them.

I'm more inclined to their side...although I do disagree with some of their illegal alien cases probably...looks like they go beyond what I would and beyond what are even civil liberties with a quick glance at the attached. Although, looks liek there is a good bit of editorializing in a couple of those "what the ALCU really wants is to steal your children.."

technomage1
04-10-2015, 02:32 AM
Most of what i have seen the ACLU do though, is rally against Christians. Such as in their support of Atheists and getting rid of 10 commandments from buildings etc. Rarely do i see them supporting Christians. Also i see them supporting Illegal immigrants a lot, rather than supporting the US Citizens the Illegals harm.
So to me they are more bad than good.

This is where the ACLU gets a bad rap. To quote their website:

"The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes only recent examples.)"

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

They then list a ton of cases. I didn't count, but as a quick estimate there are about 200 of them. When you convert the webpage to a pdf it runs 25 pages. And that's just from 2002. So over 13 years the ACLU has taken on at least 100 Christian cases, to include things like the right to private prayer and students displaying the ten commandments in their lockers.

I can't knowledgeably speak to the immigration issue but from a brief viewing of their website, current cases such as ensuring that illegal immigrant children who are alone have legal representation in the immigration court don't seem to bad to me.

MikeKerriii
04-10-2015, 05:37 AM
I just did a quick search on Bing for "ACLU and illegal immigrants and got the following..

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/06/aclu-demands-religious-groups-provide-abortions-for-illegal-immigrants/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/aclu-us-tough-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=18569230

That right there is what i was on about. They seem to spend a lot of time (and money) pushing to support Illegal immigration, rather than against them. Which to me is wrong since they are supposed to be for AMERICAN civil liberties.
they defend the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights for everyone under the authority of the Constitution, there is no mention at all that they apply only to citizens. When the bill of w right was written there was no such thing as a illegal alien.

They defend the Constitution, even in cases like Muscogie when they ended up having Jewish lawyers defend the rights of Nazis to march, successfully at that.

Rusty Jones
04-10-2015, 12:12 PM
There's alot of strange examples out there of things that conservatives like and don't like.

For example... I remember posting a video of the speech that Malcolm X gave about the difference between the house negro and the field negro, in order to illustrate a point about how middle and low income Americans vote (you can take race out of his speech, and still get the context).

What happened? The video was easily dismissed because, apparently, conservatives don't like Malcolm X. They like Martin Luther King.

This actually confuses me. Martin Luther King's target audience was the American public at large, in the fight to end Jim Crow - this included ending the practice of "whites only" signs at restaurants and stores, and discrimination in hiring practices. Of course, conservatives somehow believe that if things like this would have been left alone, then economics would punish those who engage in discrimatory practices.

In the case of Malcolm X, on the other hand, ending Jim Crow wasn't his fight. He was operating on the assumption that Jim Crow wasn't going anywhere. His target audience was black people, and he preached heavily on economic self empowerment - the creation of infrastructure alternative to the ones that they were being denied access to during the time. In other words, he believed that it was time for black people to start doing for themselves instead of waiting on whites and/or the government to open up opportunities for them.

I don't understand... from the outside looking in, wouldn't conservatives LOVE Malcom X's plan even better?

Hell, we can even take this another step further. Whenever someone posts a youtube video of young black people in a brawl at McDonald's, what's the common meme you see coming from both blacks and whites? A picture of Martin Luther King saying "I can't believe I died for this."

Now, tell me, how many of Martin Luther King's speeches were specifically directed towards blacks; calling out the ones that needed to be called out, and telling them what they need to stop doing and what they need to start doing? Conservatives bash Al Sharption for failing to do this, but where was there beloved Martin Luther King doing this? But you know someone who did this on a routine basis? Malcolm X.

I don't see a living Martin Luther King telling anyone to pull up their pants. But I do see Malcom X doing it.

This conservative disdain for the ACLU... is equally as puzzling.

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 12:24 PM
There's alot of strange examples out there of things that conservatives like and don't like.

For example... I remember posting a video of the speech that Malcolm X gave about the difference between the house negro and the field negro, in order to illustrate a point about how middle and low income Americans vote (you can take race out of his speech, and still get the context).

What happened? The video was easily dismissed because, apparently, conservatives don't like Malcolm X. They like Martin Luther King.

This actually confuses me. Martin Luther King's target audience was the American public at large, in the fight to end Jim Crow - this included ending the practice of "whites only" signs at restaurants and stores, and discrimination in hiring practices. Of course, conservatives somehow believe that if things like this would have been left alone, then economics would punish those who engage in discrimatory practices.

In the case of Malcolm X, on the other hand, ending Jim Crow wasn't his fight. He was operating on the assumption that Jim Crow wasn't going anywhere. His target audience was black people, and he preached heavily on economic self empowerment - the creation of infrastructure alternative to the ones that they were being denied access to during the time. In other words, he believed that it was time for black people to start doing for themselves instead of waiting on whites and/or the government to open up opportunities for them.

I don't understand... from the outside looking in, wouldn't conservatives LOVE Malcom X's plan even better?

Hell, we can even take this another step further. Whenever someone posts a youtube video of young black people in a brawl at McDonald's, what's the common meme you see coming from both blacks and whites? A picture of Martin Luther King saying "I can't believe I died for this."

Now, tell me, how many of Martin Luther King's speeches were specifically directed towards blacks; calling out the ones that needed to be called out, and telling them what they need to stop doing and what they need to start doing? Conservatives bash Al Sharption for failing to do this, but where was there beloved Martin Luther King doing this? But you know someone who did this on a routine basis? Malcolm X.

I don't see a living Martin Luther King telling anyone to pull up their pants. But I do see Malcom X doing it.

This conservative disdain for the ACLU... is equally as puzzling.

Rainmaker could go through all 30 or whatever of the ACLU talking points and tell you what's wrong with each of em. But, suffice it to say that any organization that supports an individual's right to poses kiddie porn, while considering the 2nd Amendment to be a collective and not an individual right must be considered to have dubious motives at best.

http://hourofthetime.com/1-LF/rogerbaldwinsovietrussiatoday1934.pdf

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 12:41 PM
and Rusty the reason for all the "conservative" MLK hero worship is that The non-violence thing is narrative that the state wants to get out there (for good reason)....Glen Beck in particular constantly beats this drum.

Dude's records had to be sealed for 50 years lest anyone find out the government knew he was collaborating with communists at the height of the cold war.

But, by 2027 when it's finally released no one will much care about or understand the implications of the truth any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.,_Records_Collection_Act

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 12:56 PM
they defend the liberties listed in the Bill of Rights for everyone under the authority of the Constitution, there is no mention at all that they apply only to citizens. When the bill of w right was written there was no such thing as a illegal alien.

They defend the Constitution, even in cases like Muscogie when they ended up having Jewish lawyers defend the rights of Nazis to march, successfully at that.

The Klan was declared a Terrorist group in 1871 by Congress. They have no constitutional rights to practice sedition . That's all for show. like I said...Controlled opposition

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 03:58 PM
Really?

So...when the Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You don't believe that?

"

The constitution was specifically meant to protect the rights of the private Citizenry of the United States from their own government. The constitution does not guarantee any "rights" to citizen's of other sovereign nations.

The declaration of independence was a declaration to the entire the world about what we were setting up and the reasons why.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 04:07 PM
The constitution was specifically meant to protect the rights of the private Citizenry of the United States from their government. The constitution does not guarantee any "rights" to citizen's of other sovereign nations.

Where as, The declaration of independence was a declaration to the entire the world about what we were setting up and why.

Yes...I get that.

The point was that "Civil Rights" are not just "American Rights"...we did not create them or invent them...we do not provide them. The normal conservative mantra is "the Constitution does not provide rights, God does...the Constitution merely protects them"

I can agree with that...though I'd say they are natural rights maybe...whatever you want to call it...it is self-evident that all men are endowed with them.

As I mentioned...since it is the US Consitution, we're not really under any obligation to protect the rights of people throughout the world...this doesn't mean they don't have rights...so, if we aren't going to be protecting them, we still should not be the ones violating those rights.

So...do illegal aliens have rights? Yes...all people do, it is self-evident.

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 04:17 PM
Yes...I get that.


The point was that "Civil Rights" are not just "American Rights"...we did not create them or invent them...we do not provide them. The normal conservative mantra is "the Constitution does not provide rights, God does...the Constitution merely protects them"

I can agree with that...though I'd say they are natural rights maybe...whatever you want to call it...it is self-evident that all men are endowed with them.

As I mentioned...since it is the US Consitution, we're not really under any obligation to protect the rights of people throughout the world...this doesn't mean they don't have rights...so, if we aren't going to be protecting them, we still should not be the ones violating those rights.

So...do illegal aliens have rights? Yes...all people do, it is self-evident.


As divinely created men, Illegal aliens have human rights.

They are not supposed to have constitutional rights guaranteed as US citizens (though that's exactly what the ACLU and the rest of the global "citizen's of the world" would like).

for example they can't legally vote in our election.

The circular reasoning of your Communist MK Ultra Programing is quite evident in your posts....Please seek help

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 04:24 PM
As divinely created men, Illegal aliens have human rights.

This was the crux of the discussion.


They are not supposed to have constitutional rights guaranteed as US citizens

A normal conservative would say the right to bear arms is the God-given right to defend oneself.

Voting and other things that are "Constitutional Rights" but not necessarily "Human Rights" and are not really "rights" at all, in this context, but "privileges of citizenship" maybe...and is not what we're talking about anyway.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 04:29 PM
This was the crux of the discussion.



A normal conservative would say the right to bear arms is the God-given right to defend oneself.

Voting and other things that are "Constitutional Rights" but not necessarily "Human Rights" and are not really "rights" at all, in this context, is not what we're talking about.

The "right" to defend oneself is a God-given right. The "right" to bear arms is a Constitutional right. They are definitely two different things.

And I like how you use the argument about "rights" not actually being rights at all. It seems like you and I had this discussion quite awhile back and you were on the other side of it (though that may have been with AA, but I'm pretty sure it was you because you posted definitions from the dictionary).

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 04:44 PM
The "right" to defend oneself is a God-given right. The "right" to bear arms is a Constitutional right. They are definitely two different things.

And I like how you use the argument about "rights" not actually being rights at all. It seems like you and I had this discussion quite awhile back and you were on the other side of it (though that may have been with AA, but I'm pretty sure it was you because you posted definitions from the dictionary).

I'm sure we've covered the ground...don't recall anything about dictionary definitions or being on "the other side"...As mentioned, in context, we often refer to the "right to vote", etc...that just wasn't the context of this particular point...

Nevertheless...I get the point...if it makes you feel better that you helped me learn this distinction, then that may very well be true.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 04:50 PM
I'm sure we've covered the ground...don't recall anything about dictionary definitions or being on "the other side"...As mentioned, in context, we often refer to the "right to vote", etc...that just wasn't the context of this particular point...

Nevertheless...I get the point...if it makes you feel better that you helped me learn this distinction, then that may very well be true.

The point was that anything that the government can take away from you is not a right, but a privilege, even if it's called a right. So, life isn't really a right because of the death penalty. Guns aren't a right because, if nobody made guns then we wouldn't have them. Medical care isn't a right because that would mean we have to have doctors and if nobody chooses to be a doctor than the government would have to force it. It was something along those lines.

Either way, I think we actually agree about the ACLU and what they stand for. What has hurt their image is the media coverage of what the ACLU does and how, on the news, etc, it's always seems to be related to race (even though there is much that doesn't get covered that doesn't fall into the race category).

So, the ultimate blame, IMO, lies with the media deciding how they want the public to view the ACLU.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 04:57 PM
The point was that anything that the government can take away from you is not a right, but a privilege, even if it's called a right. So, life isn't really a right because of the death penalty. Guns aren't a right because, if nobody made guns then we wouldn't have them. Medical care isn't a right because that would mean we have to have doctors and if nobody chooses to be a doctor than the government would have to force it. It was something along those lines.

That sounds familiar, yes. I think this still might be a little off...because according your explanation here, there are no rights...that may have been our disagreement and me being on "the other side"

If the govt. can give you the death penalty, what rights do you have? maybe your eternal soul?

I guess when I'm thinking of "God-given rights" I'm thinking about Life, Liberty, Property...but all of those can clearly be taken away from the govt....morally though, they shouldn't be without due process...and the govt. and Constitution should help protect you from having those taken by anybody else, too.

How can you say in your previous post that there is a "right to defend oneself"...when the govt. can take that away from you and put you to death?


Either way, I think we actually agree about the ACLU and what they stand for. What has hurt their image is the media coverage of what the ACLU does and how, on the news, etc, it's always seems to be related to race (even though there is much that doesn't get covered that doesn't fall into the race category).

So, the ultimate blame, IMO, lies with the media deciding how they want the public to view the ACLU.

I still remember when George H. W. Bush, in a debate, accused his opponent of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU"...this was the first real negative impression I remember of the ACLU, I don't even recall knowing who they were prior to that.

H.W. was and remains a hero of mine though. I wish they made Republicans like him again.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 05:03 PM
That sounds familiar, yes. I think I still disagree with you on this one...because according your explanation here, there are no rights.

If the govt. can give you the death penalty, what rights do you have? Or than maybe your eternal soul?

How can you say in your previous post that there is a "right to defend oneself"...when the govt. can take that away from you and you to death? I used the word "right" because it is much easier than typing "privilege" over and over. Usually I place it in quotes. Hopefully the use of that word doesn't discredit every other post I've made about this in the past. I know that can happen around here.




I still remember when George H. W. Bush, in a debate, accused his opponent of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU"...this was the first real negative impression I remember of the ACLU, I don't even recall knowing who they were prior to that. I think the first time I heard it was in the movie "American President" with Michael Douglas where his girlfriend was referred to that way and he defended her, saying that it wasn't a bad thing. That's from 1995. So I'm guessing they had already earned some sort of negative reputation from the Conservatives at that time if the Hollywood liberals had to make a point about it in a movie.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 05:13 PM
I used the word "right" because it is much easier than typing "privilege" over and over. Usually I place it in quotes. Hopefully the use of that word doesn't discredit every other post I've made about this in the past. I know that can happen around here.

Now you are really confusing me. I get the difference between right and privilege. Not trying to play word games with you.[/quote]

In my distinction, I see as the "rights" as Life, Liberty, Property...even though through due process the govt. can legally take them away...as long as you live a good life and do your own thing...you are entitled to your life, your liberty and your property...from a moral standpoint.

The "privileges of citizenship" would be things like the "right" to vote...because elections and governments are the creation of design...and that voting right was given to you by the government. So that, while colloquially, we say the "right to vote"...it's not the same kind of right as the big three.

You noted the distinction between the bibilical "right to defend oneself" and the Constitutional "right to bear arms"...are you saying these are both actually privileges?

I'm with you on the guns, perhaps, but the "right to defend oneself" is not provided by the govt., it's more with the first ones...if you have a right property, you have a right to defend it...I suppose.

What rights (not privileges) do you think there are that the govt. can not take away?


I think the first time I heard it was in the movie "American President" with Michael Douglas where his girlfriend was referred to that way and he defended her, saying that it wasn't a bad thing. That's from 1995. So I'm guessing they had already earned some sort of negative reputation from the Conservatives at that time if the Hollywood liberals had to make a point about it in a movie.

Okay, so it was the 1988 election, Bush vs. Dukakis. Dukakis actually was a member of the ACLU, and part of Bush's campaign attack was to use that against him. Prior to that, I don't think there was a huge dislike of them...so I think that's where it started.


As the general election approached, Bush faced the challenge every post-1980 Republican politician has faced: appealing to socially conservative voters without losing the support of the moderate business community. In the general election
against Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis, Bush used Dukakis' status as an ACLU member against him. "[Dukakis] says 'I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU,'" Bush first told supporters at an August rally in San Antonio, Texas. "Well, I am not—and I never will be." While it's unlikely that many undecided voters would have had any strong opinion on the ACLU, pro or con, distinguishing himself from civil liberties activism i such an aggressive way gave Bush the opportunity to connect with his base. His selection of socially conservative Indiana senator Dan Quayle as his running mate further helped define him as a candidate the Religious Right could support.


http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/fl/George-Herbert-Walker-Bush-on-Civil-Liberties.htm

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 05:33 PM
Now you are really confusing me. I get the difference between right and privilege. Not trying to play word games with you.

You noted the distinction between the bibilical "right to defend oneself" and the Constitutional "right to bear arms"...are you saying these are both actually privileges?

What rights (not privileges) do you think there are that the govt. can not take away? We have the right to defend ourselves. The government can't take that away. Once we are dead there is no more need to defend ourselves so you can use that example as a contradiction if you wish but, as usual, you get the point. They can't take away my pursuit of happiness, again, except with death.






Okay, so it was the 1988 election, Bush vs. Dukakis. Dukakis actually was a member of the ACLU, and part of Bush's campaign attack was to use that against him. Prior to that, I don't think there was a huge dislike of them...so I think that's where it started.Most likely. Reagan had made a name for himself killing unions so Bush mentioning such a thing as a negative doesn't surprise me. I was 13 at the time so probably wasn't paying too close attention.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 05:39 PM
We have the right to defend ourselves. The government can't take that away. Once we are dead there is no more need to defend ourselves so you can use that example as a contradiction if you wish but, as usual, you get the point. They can't take away my pursuit of happiness, again, except with death.

Edited my previous post around the same time you were posting this, so:

In my distinction, I see as the "rights" as Life, Liberty, Property...even though through due process the govt. can legally take them away...as long as you live a good life and do your own thing...you are entitled to your life, your liberty and your property...from a moral standpoint.

The "privileges of citizenship" would be things like the "right" to vote...because elections and governments are the creation of man...and that voting right was given to you by the government. So that, while colloquially, we say the "right to vote"...it's not the same kind of right as the big three.

And although, courts have ruled things like "right to a Free and Approrpiate Public Education" exist as a property right...I'm not totally in line with that thinking either...as the education is provided by the govt., and is therefore not the same as the big three, which exist merely because you are human, and are self-evident.


Most likely. Reagan had made a name for himself killing unions so Bush mentioning such a thing as a negative doesn't surprise me. I was 13 at the time so probably wasn't paying too close attention.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 05:47 PM
In my distinction, I see as the "rights" as Life, Liberty, Property...even though through due process the govt. can legally take them away...as long as you live a good life and do your own thing...you are entitled to your life, your liberty and your property...from a moral standpoint.I think this is pretty much where we differ. IMO, rights don't depend on anything and can't be revoked. Liberty is easily revoked, as are life and property. The things that can't be revoked are how we react internally to it, which is why happiness, or the pursuit thereof, is the only right we have, as that cannot be dictated to us. It's up to me to be happy or to chase happiness no matter what situation I am put in. Also, we can always defend ourselves. Whether successful or not at the defense, we can always keep trying.

Everything else can be taken away.

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 06:57 PM
That sounds familiar, yes. I think this still might be a little off...because according your explanation here, there are no rights...that may have been our disagreement and me being on "the other side"

If the govt. can give you the death penalty, what rights do you have? maybe your eternal soul?

I guess when I'm thinking of "God-given rights" I'm thinking about Life, Liberty, Property...but all of those can clearly be taken away from the govt....morally though, they shouldn't be without due process...and the govt. and Constitution should help protect you from having those taken by anybody else, too.

How can you say in your previous post that there is a "right to defend oneself"...when the govt. can take that away from you and put you to death?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o


I still remember when George H. W. Bush, in a debate, accused his opponent of being a "card-carrying member of the ACLU"...this was the first real negative impression I remember of the ACLU, I don't even recall knowing who they were prior to that.

H.W. was and remains a hero of mine though. I wish they made Republicans like him again.

They do. The GOP is full of Big Government, RINO Progressive Internationalists, just like H.W.. which is why it has alienated its traditional base. Don't worry . You'll have your chance to vote for Jeb. He's much more like the old man than W was.

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 07:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o

Dislike it all you want Homie. He started all this stupid shit. It's why Ross Perot tried to save the republic and gave us Clinton. watch how History repeats in 2016 & believe me Rainmaker was FULLY on board with all this when he gave the speech (as I prepped 16 hours a day, with 1 CAV to deploy for ground invasion)

MikeKerriii
04-10-2015, 07:22 PM
The Klan was declared a Terrorist group in 1871 by Congress. They have no constitutional rights to practice sedition . That's all for show. like I said...Controlled opposition I think you will find that they do have such rights, at least the Supremer Court says they do. there atre at least a dox zen variation on the Klan out there , never underestimate people ability to be stupid and evil.

MikeKerriii
04-10-2015, 07:23 PM
The constitution was specifically meant to protect the rights of the private Citizenry of the United States from their own government. The constitution does not guarantee any "rights" to citizen's of other sovereign nations.

The declaration of independence was a declaration to the entire the world about what we were setting up and the reasons why.
Sourse please? or is it just your imagination,

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 07:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o

Dislike it all you want Homie. He started all this stupid shit. It's why Ross Perot tried to save the republic and gave us Clinton. watch how History repeats in 2016 & believe me Rainmaker was FULLY on board with all this when he gave the speech (as I prepped 16 hours a day, with 1 CAV to deploy for ground invasion)

Bos Mutus often wonders, "Does Rainmaker actually have the time to make up all this bullshit on his own...or does he just have a couple crazy-man websites in his 'Favorites' folder that he clicks on to cut and paste the ramblings of a few 35 year olds living in their Mom's basement"

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 07:32 PM
Bos Mutus often wonders, "Does Rainmaker actually have the time to make up all this bullshit on his own...or does he just have a couple crazy-man websites in his 'Favorites' folder that he clicks on to cut and paste the ramblings of a few 35 year olds living in their Mom's basement"

In-spite of his poor grammar, no reading glasses and general lack of typing skills. Rainmaker is very well read. & 35 year olds probably wouldn't have to live in their Mom's basement if assholes politicians you vote for cared as much about their own country as the foreign ones that are bankrolling them

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 07:33 PM
Sourse please? or is it just your imagination,

Ft Hill High School. Coach Myers (R.I.P), 10th grade U.S. government class, 1984.

Rainmaker
04-10-2015, 07:53 PM
I think you will find that they do have such rights, at least the Supremer Court says they do. there atre at least a dox zen variation on the Klan out there , never underestimate people ability to be stupid and evil.

you mean the supreme court that is stocked with traitorous ACLU lawyers like Feminist Lesbian Ideologue Ruth Bader Ginsberg, that think the legal age of consent for a pedophile to have sex with a child should be 13? or that publically state they wouldn't be satisfied untill there are no men left on the court? that supreme court?!!! or just the other one that cares about the constitution and only exists in your mind?

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 08:10 PM
In-spite of his poor grammar, no reading glasses and general lack of typing skills. Rainmaker is very well read. & 35 year olds probably wouldn't have to live in their Mom's basement if assholes politicians you vote for cared as much about their own country as the foreign ones that are bankrolling them

That doesn't really answer the question.

George H.W. Bush might be the last politician I voted for that actually won...

On second thought, I believe I did for W. the first time...that was probably the last time my vote won as far as a national election.

Also, this past Novermber our Community Services District had 3 people running for 2 open board memeber positions, we were allowed to vote for 2. One of the ones I voted for won one of the seats...but that was almost like a guarantee. If I can vote for 2 out 3 for 2 positions...I couldn't miss! The other guy I voted for was the odd man out.

garhkal
04-10-2015, 10:28 PM
This conservative disdain for the ACLU... is equally as puzzling.

Maybe its cause everything i have heard/seen of the ACLU seems to be focused on pushing a liberal agenda..



Either way, I think we actually agree about the ACLU and what they stand for. What has hurt their image is the media coverage of what the ACLU does and how, on the news, etc, it's always seems to be related to race (even though there is much that doesn't get covered that doesn't fall into the race category).

So, the ultimate blame, IMO, lies with the media deciding how they want the public to view the ACLU.

And part of that IMO falls back on the ACLU's publicity branch for not correcting the press.

Rainmaker
04-11-2015, 03:05 AM
That doesn't really answer the question.

George H.W. Bush might be the last politician I voted for that actually won...

On second thought, I believe I did for W. the first time...that was probably the last time my vote won as far as a national election.

Also, this past Novermber our Community Services District had 3 people running for 2 open board memeber positions, we were allowed to vote for 2. One of the ones I voted for won one of the seats...but that was almost like a guarantee. If I can vote for 2 out 3 for 2 positions...I couldn't miss! The other guy I voted for was the odd man out.

Me too...Rainmaker voted. Bush 88, Perot 92, Dole 96, Algore 00, Mick E. Mouse 04,08,12...

Rainmaker
04-11-2015, 03:08 AM
Maybe its cause everything i have heard/seen of the ACLU seems to be focused on pushing a liberal agenda..


That's the Understatement of the year...

TJMAC77SP
04-11-2015, 03:09 AM
That doesn't really answer the question.

George H.W. Bush might be the last politician I voted for that actually won...

On second thought, I believe I did for W. the first time...that was probably the last time my vote won as far as a national election.

Also, this past Novermber our Community Services District had 3 people running for 2 open board memeber positions, we were allowed to vote for 2. One of the ones I voted for won one of the seats...but that was almost like a guarantee. If I can vote for 2 out 3 for 2 positions...I couldn't miss! The other guy I voted for was the odd man out.

Tell me, did you buy the 'price of a pound of hamburger' stuff?

MikeKerriii
04-11-2015, 03:49 AM
Ft Hill High School. Coach Myers (R.I.P), 10th grade U.S. government class, 1984.

I am sorry that you had such an ignorant teacher, perhaps you might try reading the document yourself?

Rainmaker
04-11-2015, 04:03 AM
I am sorry that you had such an ignorant teacher, perhaps you might try reading the document yourself?

Don't apologize Mike (it's unbecoming and a sign of weakness).... As for Old Coach Myers , He may have been ignorant. But, He jumped at D-Day and he probably liberated your Grandparents in Europe, so you could have the privilege of contaminating the Earth with your poison.

Maybe tonight you should thank him for that, in your prayers to G-d or the Universe or Saturn or yourself or whatever the hell it is that you worship?

I have the declaration of Independence hanging on the wall (next to my gun cabinet) in my living room and a pocket sized constitution, (given to me when i swore the oath) in my desk drawer (next to my 1911).

So then, How bout you Mike? where do you keep yours, when's the last time you read it?

MikeKerriii
04-11-2015, 05:44 AM
Don't apologize Mike (it's unbecoming and a sign of weakness).... As for Old Coach Myers , He may have been ignorant. But, He jumped at D-Day and he probably liberated your Grandparents in Europe, so you could have the privilege of contaminating the Earth with your poison.

Maybe tonight you should thank him for that, in your prayers to G-d or the Universe or Saturn or yourself or whatever the hell it is that you worship?

I have the declaration of Independence hanging on the wall (next to my gun cabinet) in my living room and a pocket sized constitution, (given to me when i swore the oath) in my desk drawer (next to my 1911).

So then, How bout you Mike? where do you keep yours, when's the last time you read it?

My Father was in Europe During WWII, with the 300th Infantry to be exact, so I doubt your coach rescued him, His granfather fought in the Civil War, his great granfather in the war of 1812 and that guys father in the revolution. Your ignrance and bigotry are showing

I doubt your family has been in the US any longer than mine. Unless you are a Native American or His[panic that is very hard to do

If you think that there is anything in the Constition says that it applies only to citizens, yoiu are proof that owning a document doesn't mean you can read it. Ifhe taughrt you that the Constition was only fo Americans he was simply a incomptent teacher.

Rollyn01
04-11-2015, 12:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o

Dislike it all you want Homie. He started all this stupid shit. It's why Ross Perot tried to save the republic and gave us Clinton. watch how History repeats in 2016 & believe me Rainmaker was FULLY on board with all this when he gave the speech (as I prepped 16 hours a day, with 1 CAV to deploy for ground invasion)

Currently looking for some det cord, or is that stored somewhere in the bunker? Aside for that, I've already set a perimeter with rolls of razor-wire and claymores for antipersonnel defense. I don't have anymore C-4 due to other "scout-related activities". If you can put in a request for that, it would make the set up a lot easier. As per standard, the smoking section has been marked off with engineering tape( aka the entire bunker). No luck finding an anti-aircraft gun, something bout a 2-year waiting period as they do a background check because I keep "fitting the description". I'm not even sure how, I'm West Indian, not African-American. Anywho, You mind giving me a LACE report so I know what we're working with?

Rainmaker
04-11-2015, 01:31 PM
I doubt your family has been in the US any longer than mine. Unless you are a Native American or His[panic that is very hard to do

If you think that there is anything in the Constition says that it applies only to citizens, yoiu are proof that owning a document doesn't mean you can read it. Ifhe taughrt you that the Constition was only fo Americans he was simply a incomptent teacher.




Since, Rainmaker can't read would you mind telling him then just who (you think) it is that they're referring to in the preamble?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


OF and FOR the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...seems pretty clear to me, who has constitutional rights.... Maybe they really meant to say " we the people of and for the Globalist NEOCON Village", as it stands it's very confusing to us here ignant hillbillies...

and we trace BOG back to at least 1723 on my Father's side. But, My Mother's side was full of Illegal Alien idol worshipers from Ireland, They were Probably brought here in chains against their will (no doubt as a debt servants) to the evil Anglo-Saxon people (can i get some reparations?).

Thanks for the Historical Revisionism Lesson though. I guess Coach Myers and I didn't realize that Hernando DeSoto was the first Castizo Founding Father present at the constitutional convention.

UncaRastus
04-11-2015, 02:49 PM
Perot was a man of action (see Perot/Iran).

On the other hand, when he said that he'd sleep in the gutter to ensure that his grandchildren had a better future was a sticking point with me. I can only imagine that that statement was meant for everyone in the USA.

As to the ACLU? Their backing of Cesar Chavez came into question when one of my Dad's hay trucks, down in southern California near the Mexican border was involved in an accident with a Ford Galaxy loaded with 15 illegal aliens.

That was the world record at the time, for illegal aliens loaded into one car. Vans and trucks are more spacious.

Cesar Chavez and the ACLU took this case to court. Chavez had never lost a case in California, due to the help of the ACLU.

As soon as this accident was called into Dad's hay company office, he called a lawyer and a notary public to go to the accident. The Notary Public stamped the speedometer, which was locked at 55 mph, the speed limit for trucks on the highway that the crash occurred on.

The police had arrived, and found the truck driver still wearing his seat, with his seat belt still on.

The car ran through a stop sign, and smacked right into the loaded trailer. The occupants were in flight from the Border Patrol, and were clocked at 100 miles per hour.

Cesar being Cesar, and the ACLU being the ACLU, seeing as how Cesar's victories in court being unblemished, he thought that he had an easy win.

Dad said that he'd use every penny possible, if he had to, to the point of going bankrupt in this case.

He didn't get close to spending everything that he/his company had. With the evidence laid before the court, his driver was found not guilty. Cesar/ACLU had to pay the court costs, being the losing side.

Oh, and Dad's driver? A Mexican/American that had been naturalized prior to Dad hiring him.

So, in a microcosmic view, the ACLU isn't always about what is right.

Rainmaker
04-11-2015, 03:30 PM
Just look at the ACLU and their active defense of NAMBLA and the national campaign to destroy the Boy Scouts of America to see what these cretins are all about. They deliberately use our tax dollars to twist the meaning of the framer's intent, and destroy the fabric of the country. It's disgusting what they do

But, what's really Amazing to me is all the defense here of this blatant commie front group. I'd expect this much on Huffpo. But, Rainmaker must've missed it. When did MTF turn into Leftist Agitprop? The fact that combat veterans consider these people to be moderates is evidence of the complete collapse of society we've already had.

Roger Baldwin, Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman... check into the background of these people and you'll quickly figure it out.

garhkal
04-11-2015, 10:27 PM
Perot was a man of action (see Perot/Iran).

On the other hand, when he said that he'd sleep in the gutter to ensure that his grandchildren had a better future was a sticking point with me. I can only imagine that that statement was meant for everyone in the USA.

As to the ACLU? Their backing of Cesar Chavez came into question when one of my Dad's hay trucks, down in southern California near the Mexican border was involved in an accident with a Ford Galaxy loaded with 15 illegal aliens.

That was the world record at the time, for illegal aliens loaded into one car. Vans and trucks are more spacious.

Cesar Chavez and the ACLU took this case to court. Chavez had never lost a case in California, due to the help of the ACLU.

As soon as this accident was called into Dad's hay company office, he called a lawyer and a notary public to go to the accident. The Notary Public stamped the speedometer, which was locked at 55 mph, the speed limit for trucks on the highway that the crash occurred on.

The police had arrived, and found the truck driver still wearing his seat, with his seat belt still on.

The car ran through a stop sign, and smacked right into the loaded trailer. The occupants were in flight from the Border Patrol, and were clocked at 100 miles per hour.

Cesar being Cesar, and the ACLU being the ACLU, seeing as how Cesar's victories in court being unblemished, he thought that he had an easy win.

Dad said that he'd use every penny possible, if he had to, to the point of going bankrupt in this case.

He didn't get close to spending everything that he/his company had. With the evidence laid before the court, his driver was found not guilty. Cesar/ACLU had to pay the court costs, being the losing side.

Oh, and Dad's driver? A Mexican/American that had been naturalized prior to Dad hiring him.

So, in a microcosmic view, the ACLU isn't always about what is right.

I feel sorry for your dad that he had to go almost into bankruptcy to fight this, but glad the courts decided in his favor.

MikeKerriii
04-14-2015, 08:28 AM
Just look at the ACLU and their active defense of NAMBLA and the national campaign to destroy the Boy Scouts of America to see what these cretins are all about. They deliberately use our tax dollars to twist the meaning of the framer's intent, and destroy the fabric of the country. It's disgusting what they do

But, what's really Amazing to me is all the defense here of this blatant commie front group. I'd expect this much on Huffpo. But, Rainmaker must've missed it. When did MTF turn into Leftist Agitprop? The fact that combat veterans consider these people to be moderates is evidence of the complete collapse of society we've already had.

Roger Baldwin, Margaret Sanger, Emma Goldman... check into the background of these people and you'll quickly figure it out.

They are supporting NAMBLA right to speak, they have that right no matter how idiot or despicable their speak. I guess you missed the 1st Amendment in you extensive studies,. The have Also supported the Clan, the republican Party and the Nazi Party of the US


But a guess fans of police thuggish such as yourself have no problem with right being denied

technomage1
04-14-2015, 11:45 AM
They are supporting NAMBLA right to speak, they have that right no matter how idiot or despicable their speak. I guess you missed the 1st Amendment in you extensive studies,. The have Also supported the Clan, the republican Party and the Nazi Party of the US


But a guess fans of police thuggish such as yourself have no problem with right being denied

Let them speak. I'd rather know who the vile, ignorant fools are so I can avoid them.

As far as the BSA - they brought that on themselves, by w acting to discriminate and take taxpayer funds. You never hear about the Girl Scouts because they will take any girl. It's a darn shame too, because there is a lot of good to scouting. I'd like to support them but until they let every boy in - and that includes atheists, who they bar by requiring a religious oath - I can't support them.

garhkal
04-15-2015, 09:25 PM
For those saying the ACLU is not bashing Christianity/Catholics.. take a look at this.

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2015/04/14/aclu-to-catholics-give-abortions-to-immigrant-children-n1984725

https://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/aclu-wants-the-federal-government-to-force-catholic-hospitals-to-provide-abortions/

http://larslarson.com/aclu-to-catholics-provide-abortions-for-illegal-aliens/

technomage1
04-16-2015, 01:12 AM
For those saying the ACLU is not bashing Christianity/Catholics.. take a look at this.

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2015/04/14/aclu-to-catholics-give-abortions-to-immigrant-children-n1984725

https://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/aclu-wants-the-federal-government-to-force-catholic-hospitals-to-provide-abortions/

http://larslarson.com/aclu-to-catholics-provide-abortions-for-illegal-aliens/



First of all, the Hobby Lobby decision referenced in at least 1 article was vile. No corporation was EVER forced to provide abortions, or anything that is considered by the medical community to be an abortion. Calling what was required - birth control - an abortion stretches the facts of what an abortion is beyond belief.

Secondly, are you seriously telling me that you want to tell some poor immigrant kid who has been raped that she can't get emergency contraception or at least be referred to an abortionist? A private organization that doesn't accept US funds might have that right, but according to the first article you linked, "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has contracts with the federal government to care for the arriving children. In 2014, the Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had a total budget of $71 million, of which 93 percent was composed of federal grants and contracts, according to Breitbart.com". In other words, they're being PAID by the government to provide a service, and that service includes emergency contraception and referring people to abortionists. If you can't provide the service, don't accept the contract or the grant money.

Thanks for reminding me that my ACLU membership is due....

MikeKerriii
04-16-2015, 03:09 AM
For those saying the ACLU is not bashing Christianity/Catholics.. take a look at this.

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2015/04/14/aclu-to-catholics-give-abortions-to-immigrant-children-n1984725

https://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/aclu-wants-the-federal-government-to-force-catholic-hospitals-to-provide-abortions/

http://larslarson.com/aclu-to-catholics-provide-abortions-for-illegal-aliens/

Making hospitals obey the law is bashing the Catholic Church?

technomage1
04-16-2015, 03:45 AM
Making hospitals obey the law is bashing the Catholic Church?

Apparently, yes. In the same sense that providing birth control is giving someone an abortion....sheesh.

I really don't have a problem with a privately funded hospital refusing to provide a service they don't agree with. I have huge problems with on organization that is 93% federally funded doing so.

garhkal
04-16-2015, 08:23 AM
But in the same vein, didn't the govt KNOW that this religious org had those beliefs when it contracted them out to provide 'care to these illegals' coming in?
And now it is wanting them to go against their faith by providing contraception/abortions.

technomage1
04-16-2015, 09:34 AM
But in the same vein, didn't the govt KNOW that this religious org had those beliefs when it contracted them out to provide 'care to these illegals' coming in?
And now it is wanting them to go against their faith by providing contraception/abortions.

The government didn't hold a gun to their head and make them bid on the contract. By bidding, the contractor accepts the terms of the contract. It's not up to the government to examine their motives.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 02:50 PM
But in the same vein, didn't the govt KNOW that this religious org had those beliefs when it contracted them out to provide 'care to these illegals' coming in?
And now it is wanting them to go against their faith by providing contraception/abortions.

Our base chapel is putting out a contract for a pianist....I wonder if I could bid on it and then refuse to play religious hymns?

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2015, 03:52 PM
Our base chapel is putting out a contract for a pianist....I wonder if I could bid on it and then refuse to play religious hymns?

The ACLU may take up your case if you do.

Bos Mutus
04-16-2015, 04:28 PM
The ACLU may take up your case if you do.

I'd better get to practicing!

sandsjames
04-16-2015, 04:44 PM
Apparently, yes. In the same sense that providing birth control is giving someone an abortion....sheesh.

Exactly. Binging at Golden Corral then going home and making myself throw up is the same as being on a healthy diet. My body hasn't actually stored the fat from all the food I ate yet.

Rainmaker
04-17-2015, 05:34 AM
First of all, the Hobby Lobby decision referenced in at least 1 article was vile. No corporation was EVER forced to provide abortions, or anything that is considered by the medical community to be an abortion. Calling what was required - birth control - an abortion stretches the facts of what an abortion is beyond belief.

Secondly, are you seriously telling me that you want to tell some poor immigrant kid who has been raped that she can't get emergency contraception or at least be referred to an abortionist? A private organization that doesn't accept US funds might have that right, but according to the first article you linked, "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has contracts with the federal government to care for the arriving children. In 2014, the Bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had a total budget of $71 million, of which 93 percent was composed of federal grants and contracts, according to Breitbart.com". In other words, they're being PAID by the government to provide a service, and that service includes emergency contraception and referring people to abortionists. If you can't provide the service, don't accept the contract or the grant money.

Thanks for reminding me that my ACLU membership is due....

You've raised a valid point that's hardly ever mentioned in the "News". The churches are making money hand over fist from this government's flooding of America with hordes of 3rd world illegal aliens. which is exactly why this Marxist Pope is calling anyone who doesn't want to go along with their country being forcibly colonized and their culture destroyed (at their own expense) a Xenophobe.

As for abortion, The communist pedophiles at the ACLU demand that 50 Million Americans have the unalienable right to commit infanticide, so that they can then be replaced with 50 Million Mestizo Slave labor Peasants (that won't ever be fully assimilated or deported).

garhkal
04-17-2015, 07:09 AM
As for abortion, The communist pedophiles at the ACLU demand that 50 Million Americans have the unalienable right to commit infanticide, so that they can then be replaced with 50 Million Mestizo Slave labor Peasants (that won't ever be fully assimilated or deported).

What gets me is the ACLU seems to be ALL for killing someone when it comes to abortions, but is against the death penalty.

So in their minds, criminals who rape and murder (or just murder) folk, are LESS worthy of being killed off than an unborn child is? How is that right to ANY Sane person is beyond me.

Bos Mutus
04-17-2015, 03:13 PM
What gets me is the ACLU seems to be ALL for killing someone when it comes to abortions, but is against the death penalty.

So in their minds, criminals who rape and murder (or just murder) folk, are LESS worthy of being killed off than an unborn child is? How is that right to ANY Sane person is beyond me.

I know we've explained this before, so, I don't imagine it would do any good to try and explain it once more.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8980-Abortion-Topic?highlight=death+penalty

garhkal
04-17-2015, 09:01 PM
I know we've explained this before, so, I don't imagine it would do any good to try and explain it once more.

http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/8980-Abortion-Topic?highlight=death+penalty

And if you remember i DID post to that thread, so i know what the arguments are.. I just find it hypocritical that the ACLU of all orgs, are Against the death penalty but all for Abortions. So unborn babies in their eyes have LESS liberties than a convicted murderer does.

Bos Mutus
04-17-2015, 09:34 PM
And if you remember i DID post to that thread, so i know what the arguments are.. I just find it hypocritical that the ACLU of all orgs, are Against the death penalty but all for Abortions. So unborn babies in their eyes have LESS liberties than a convicted murderer does.

We've been over the argument...saying it again in all caps doesn't make it any more persuasive.

You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want...but it's not hypocritical and not insane...it's two different issues and two different principles...but I don't really expect you to understand it.

I find it hypocritical that you talk about the civil liberties of zygotes, but then say civil liberties are only for Americans...you can become an American only by birth or by naturalization....

I find it hypocritical when people say the unborn is just the same as a born person, so abortion=murder...but then it's okay to murder the innocent in the case of rape.

I find it hypocritical that people say a the govt. should be able to order a woman to use her body to sustain the life of an unborn child...but no one has signed up to allow the govt. to order someone to donate a kidney to sustain another's life.


I find a lot of things hypocritical....
None of us are reading the topic to understand, we're reading for a mispoken word in order to respond...so, let's just forget it.

sandsjames
04-17-2015, 09:43 PM
None of us are reading the topic to understand, we're reading for a mispoken word in order to respond...so, let's just forget it.

This is the truth on 98% (I don't have official stats so please feel free to make your own estimate) of the arguments made on this forum, on all forums, and in all political arguments in general. Nobody wants to make their argument, they just want to point out what's wrong with the other person's argument. I know the feeling, trust me, when I don't phrase something the way I mean and it gets used against me.

Bos Mutus
04-17-2015, 09:46 PM
This is the truth on 98% (I don't have official stats so please feel free to make your own estimate) of the arguments made on this forum, on all forums, and in all political arguments in general. Nobody wants to make their argument, they just want to point out what's wrong with the other person's argument. I know the feeling, trust me, when I don't phrase something the way I mean and it gets used against me.

98% seems about right +/- 2%

TJMAC77SP
04-18-2015, 12:47 AM
We've been over the argument...saying it again in all caps doesn't make it any more persuasive.

You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want...but it's not hypocritical and not insane...it's two different issues and two different principles...but I don't really expect you to understand it.

I find it hypocritical that you talk about the civil liberties of zygotes, but then say civil liberties are only for Americans...you can become an American only by birth or by naturalization....

I find it hypocritical when people say the unborn is just the same as a born person, so abortion=murder...but then it's okay to murder the innocent in the case of rape.

I find it hypocritical that people say a the govt. should be able to order a woman to use her body to sustain the life of an unborn child...but no one has signed up to allow the govt. to order someone to donate a kidney to sustain another's life.


I find a lot of things hypocritical....
None of us are reading the topic to understand, we're reading for a mispoken word in order to respond...so, let's just forget it.

While the topic is of course more intricate than Garhkal's position, there are some anti-abortion activists who believe that all abortion is wrong, regardless of the timing....starting with the moment of conception. With that in mind it does seem incredulous to be opposed to one kind of purposeful death and ok with another.

Bos Mutus
04-18-2015, 06:39 AM
While the topic is of course more intricate than Garhkal's position, there are some anti-abortion activists who believe that all abortion is wrong, regardless of the timing....starting with the moment of conception.

true...and there might be words to describe that position, but I don't find it to be hypocritical




With that in mind it does seem incredulous to be opposed to one kind of purposeful death and ok with another.

It's only incredulous if one considers a 2 week old "baby" the same as a human life.

If the anti-abortion crowd wants to win this debate, they have to win that point....

Mjölnir
04-18-2015, 12:38 PM
98% seems about right +/- 2%

Statistics:

http://i.imgur.com/doair.gif

sandsjames
04-18-2015, 12:50 PM
true...and there might be words to describe that position, but I don't find it to be hypocritical



It's only incredulous if one considers a 2 week old "baby" the same as a human life.

If the anti-abortion crowd wants to win this debate, they have to win that point....


Exactly. It's only murder if it's considered a human at the time. So, if a person believes that it's not a person at the time, then it's not hypocritical at all.

But overall, yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy for everyone.

Believers of the bible justify exceptions to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount every single day. "Thou shalt not kill" except for war, self defense, if the guy runs, the death penalty, etc. Yet justifications will be attempted.

The Pro Choice crowd justify exceptions to "choice", every single day, if the choice isn't the same as what they would make. "It's a woman's choice to choose, but a woman who chooses to be a stay at home mom is hurting women's rights." "The wife needs to be notified before a man gets a vasectomy" etc, etc.

Don't even get me started on the majority of tree huggers.

But this list could go on and on, forever.

Here's the conclusion I've come to. The Atheist liberals main beef with religion isn't even really about the religious beliefs, it's about the fact that religious beliefs (Christianity) are generally associated with conservatives while, at the same time, Christian conservatives don't really have a problem with the Atheists, except for the fact that most Atheists are liberals.

So it's not about the religion, it's about the politics. Everything is about the politics. It's about "I'm right, you're wrong, and I will not accept what you have to say, even if it does have logic behind it."

So there is no compromise. There will never be a compromise, and nothing will ever get solved. We can argue points all day and all of us can easily (as we've been talking about) point out where we all contradict ourselves, or are hypocritical.

The reason is because we are all in a government, a society, where you're either forced to be a liberal democrat or a conservative republican. If a politician is a anti-abortion Christian who is for welfare and a national healthcare system there is no place for them in our political system. There is no party for them and they don't have a voice.

Take the current discussion, for instance. "How can one be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and anti death penalty"? Simple, because they are two different things. The circumstances around them are completely different.

How can someone be poor/middle class and be conservative? Simple, because there is much more to being conservative then just the financial issues and, for many, the financial issues aren't the priority.

So we can discuss/argue 'til our faces are blue but, really, it comes down to the point that RM is trying to make (even though he does it in a way that alienates everyone). We are all being put in the position of arguing about this shit so that those in office can stay in office and do what they want while the voters are too busy paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

Rollyn01
04-18-2015, 01:52 PM
Exactly. It's only murder if it's considered a human at the time. So, if a person believes that it's not a person at the time, then it's not hypocritical at all.

But overall, yes, there is plenty of hypocrisy for everyone.

Believers of the bible justify exceptions to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount every single day. "Thou shalt not kill" except for war, self defense, if the guy runs, the death penalty, etc. Yet justifications will be attempted.

The Pro Choice crowd justify exceptions to "choice", every single day, if the choice isn't the same as what they would make. "It's a woman's choice to choose, but a woman who chooses to be a stay at home mom is hurting women's rights." "The wife needs to be notified before a man gets a vasectomy" etc, etc.

Don't even get me started on the majority of tree huggers.

But this list could go on and on, forever.

Here's the conclusion I've come to. The Atheist liberals main beef with religion isn't even really about the religious beliefs, it's about the fact that religious beliefs (Christianity) are generally associated with conservatives while, at the same time, Christian conservatives don't really have a problem with the Atheists, except for the fact that most Atheists are liberals.

So it's not about the religion, it's about the politics. Everything is about the politics. It's about "I'm right, you're wrong, and I will not accept what you have to say, even if it does have logic behind it."

So there is no compromise. There will never be a compromise, and nothing will ever get solved. We can argue points all day and all of us can easily (as we've been talking about) point out where we all contradict ourselves, or are hypocritical.

The reason is because we are all in a government, a society, where you're either forced to be a liberal democrat or a conservative republican. If a politician is a anti-abortion Christian who is for welfare and a national healthcare system there is no place for them in our political system. There is no party for them and they don't have a voice.

Take the current discussion, for instance. "How can one be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and anti death penalty"? Simple, because they are two different things. The circumstances around them are completely different.

How can someone be poor/middle class and be conservative? Simple, because there is much more to being conservative then just the financial issues and, for many, the financial issues aren't the priority.

So we can discuss/argue 'til our faces are blue but, really, it comes down to the point that RM is trying to make (even though he does it in a way that alienates everyone). We are all being put in the position of arguing about this shit so that those in office can stay in office and do what they want while the voters are too busy paying attention to the man behind the curtain.

This is interesting. I would have never thought that you of all people would give Rainmaker such an endorsement. Hell, I know me and you have had our back-and-forths as well, but I just chalk it up to part of the proper discourse that makes a good forum. To see this however, is surprisingly refreshing though.

sandsjames
04-18-2015, 03:15 PM
This is interesting. I would have never thought that you of all people would give Rainmaker such an endorsement. Hell, I know me and you have had our back-and-forths as well, but I just chalk it up to part of the proper discourse that makes a good forum. To see this however, is surprisingly refreshing though.

It's surprising for exactly the purposes I mentioned. I have my personal views that my family and I live by. Many times my posts are based on those ideas.

Personally, I'm quite conservative. Outside of my house, however, I'm pretty liberal. It's hard, as mentioned in my prior post, for people to comprehend this. It seems to be all or nothing or there's no credibility. It's why we're so messed up.

As far as for RM, his basis is fine, IMO. I'd compare him to my view of Rand Paul. He's got a lot of ideas I'm on board with. However, he has a tendency to make certain comments that make him seem bat shit crazy.

Rollyn01
04-18-2015, 03:24 PM
It's surprising for exactly the purposes I mentioned. I have my personal views that my family and I live by. Many times my posts are based on those ideas.

Personally, I'm quite conservative. Outside of my house, however, I'm pretty liberal. It's hard, as mentioned in my prior post, for people to comprehend this. It seems to be all or nothing or there's no credibility. It's why we're so messed up.

As far as for RM, his basis is fine, IMO. I'd compare him to my view of Rand Paul. He's got a lot of ideas I'm on board with. However, he has a tendency to make certain comments that make him seem bat shit crazy.

Well, color me purple, I'll drink a beer to that. I actually like Rand Paul too. As for his bat shit crazy, I think that's just a way to get people's attention and make them think. The same way a NCO uses foul language to get a recruit's attention and makes them move with a purpose.

sandsjames
04-18-2015, 03:53 PM
Well, color me purple, I'll drink a beer to that. I actually like Rand Paul too. As for his bat shit crazy, I think that's just a way to get people's attention and make them think. The same way a NCO uses foul language to get a recruit's attention and makes them move with a purpose.

Imagine a politician making the following 2 statements:

"I believe that abortion is a sin and because of that my wife and I would never even consider that as an option, but in our society it's up to people to make those choices for themselves."

"I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals are going to have to answer to God one day but, in our society, it's up to people to live their lives as they please and, if they want to get married, let them get married."

There would be very little support for the person making that statement. Conservatives would say that I'm too liberal and liberals would say that they don't want to hear my religious views.

Let's be honest. The abortion issue isn't even about the life of the baby. Pro-choicers play it off as religious nuts trying to force beliefs on them and Conservatives think that it's a tool poor people use to avoid the responsibility of being careful when having sex. The baby plays no part in the argument, in general, anymore.

TJMAC77SP
04-18-2015, 04:46 PM
true...and there might be words to describe that position, but I don't find it to be hypocritical

No I suppose you don't because then this discussion wouldn't be taking place.


It's only incredulous if one considers a 2 week old "baby" the same as a human life.

If the anti-abortion crowd wants to win this debate, they have to win that point....


You are dismissing beliefs (religious and otherwise) and declaring victory. I can't do that. Where in development is a fetus "human"?

TJMAC77SP
04-18-2015, 04:52 PM
This is interesting. I would have never thought that you of all people would give @Rainmaker (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=13985) such an endorsement. Hell, I know me and you have had our back-and-forths as well, but I just chalk it up to part of the proper discourse that makes a good forum. To see this however, is surprisingly refreshing though.


No one is endorsing RM's style of posting. It is well known that he is 'role-playing' for lack of a better phrase. His posts sometimes contain valid point (albeit often buried deep). These points make some people uncomfortable because they challenge their particular belief system. Particularly those whose belief system is universal and absolute. They hold that things are always all good or all bad.

TJMAC77SP
04-18-2015, 04:53 PM
Imagine a politician making the following 2 statements:

"I believe that abortion is a sin and because of that my wife and I would never even consider that as an option, but in our society it's up to people to make those choices for themselves."

"I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and that homosexuals are going to have to answer to God one day but, in our society, it's up to people to live their lives as they please and, if they want to get married, let them get married."

There would be very little support for the person making that statement. Conservatives would say that I'm too liberal and liberals would say that they don't want to hear my religious views.

Let's be honest. The abortion issue isn't even about the life of the baby. Pro-choicers play it off as religious nuts trying to force beliefs on them and Conservatives think that it's a tool poor people use to avoid the responsibility of being careful when having sex. The baby plays no part in the argument, in general, anymore.

Interesting points.

garhkal
04-18-2015, 10:13 PM
We've been over the argument...saying it again in all caps doesn't make it any more persuasive.

You can disagree with their viewpoint all you want...but it's not hypocritical and not insane...it's two different issues and two different principles...but I don't really expect you to understand it.


To me it seems hypocritical.
Take murder charges. When i kill you, i get charged wit murder. If however i kill a woman who is pregnant, i get charged with murder of BOTH her and the unborn feotus. That is part of why i find it hypocritical.
Currently there are 36 states which have it on the law books that if you kill a pregnant woman you get that double charge. So if its murder for someone else to do it, why is it NOT also murder for a woman to do it?


I find it hypocritical that you talk about the civil liberties of zygotes, but then say civil liberties are only for Americans...you can become an American only by birth or by naturalization....

But what is considered a civil liberty. Many points in the Constitution say that these laws protect those to whom they cover (or something like that). Are you really feeling that EVERYONE in the world thusly should be covered by our constitutional laws?


I find it hypocritical when people say the unborn is just the same as a born person, so abortion=murder...but then it's okay to murder the innocent in the case of rape.


So you would rather a woman raped be forced to bear the child to term, having that consistent reminder of her victimization?
Who should pay for all her medical bills during that time then?


I find it hypocritical that people say a the govt. should be able to order a woman to use her body to sustain the life of an unborn child...but no one has signed up to allow the govt. to order someone to donate a kidney to sustain another's life.


That i agree with. If a woman should be forced to carry a child to term cause she otherwise would not want the kid, then it is Similar (in essence) to requiring someone to give up a kidney/liver etc..

sandsjames
04-18-2015, 11:01 PM
But what is considered a civil liberty. Many points in the Constitution say that these laws protect those to whom they cover (or something like that). Are you really feeling that EVERYONE in the world thusly should be covered by our constitutional laws? Is an unborn child a citizen? They don't have a birth certificate/passport...so really I guess they would be considered undocumented, at best.




So you would rather a woman raped be forced to bear the child to term, having that consistent reminder of her victimization?
Who should pay for all her medical bills during that time then? I pretty sure that's not what he's condoning...he's just saying it's hypocritical to separate the two.

Bos Mutus
04-19-2015, 04:37 PM
To me it seems hypocritical.
Take murder charges. When i kill you, i get charged wit murder. If however i kill a woman who is pregnant, i get charged with murder of BOTH her and the unborn feotus. That is part of why i find it hypocritical.
Currently there are 36 states which have it on the law books that if you kill a pregnant woman you get that double charge. So if its murder for someone else to do it, why is it NOT also murder for a woman to do it?


i agree that the double murder charge is inconsistent with abortion...you can call that one hypocritical, sure.



But what is considered a civil liberty. Many points in the Constitution say that these laws protect those to whom they cover (or something like that). Are you really feeling that EVERYONE in the world thusly should be covered by our constitutional laws?

no, I'm not saying that. We are under no obligation to protect those rights for everyone.



So you would rather a woman raped be forced to bear the child to term, having that consistent reminder of her victimization?
Who should pay for all her medical bills during that time then?

no...I'm not the one that thinks an early term abortion is the same as murder....can you explain why, if abortion is murder, that it's okay to murder a child here?


That i agree with. If a woman should be forced to carry a child to term cause she otherwise would not want the kid, then it is Similar (in essence) to requiring someone to give up a kidney/liver etc..

okay...so you are still opposed to abortion.....or are you in favor of mandating kidney donation?

sandsjames
04-19-2015, 05:06 PM
okay...so you are still opposed to abortion.....or are you in favor of mandating kidney donation?

Ugh...words in the mouth...I will infer the following...He's still opposed to abortion, he's not in favor of mandating kidney donation...he's simply making an analogy/comparison.

Though I'm sure that, in the future, this statement will be brought up by some to ask him why he thinks people should be forced to give up organs...

Can we just stop, really, with the BS? And have a conversation without being accusatory with what the other guy is saying?

garhkal
04-19-2015, 07:37 PM
Is an unborn child a citizen? They don't have a birth certificate/passport...so really I guess they would be considered undocumented, at best.


IMO an unborn child of a US citizen is a lot closer to BEING a citizen than an illegal immigrant or their anchor babies.


i agree that the double murder charge is inconsistent with abortion...you can call that one hypocritical, sure.

Glad we agree.


no, I'm not saying that. We are under no obligation to protect those rights for everyone.

Why then do they extend to illegal immigrants who by definition are criminals?


no.I'm not the one that thinks an early term abortion is the same as murder....can you explain why, if abortion is murder, that it's okay to murder a child here?

If abortion is not murder, then why is killing a pregnant woman 2 counts. So since we DO have more than half the country that feels that way, that sets the precedent that to abort a feotus is murder, therefore it is wrong. That's why i feel that way.


okay...so you are still opposed to abortion.....or are you in favor of mandating kidney donation?

As i have said for a while, i feel abortions are only ok in cases of rape/incest (basically when the woman has gotten pregnant cause of a crime) or in the case where being forced to carry the baby to term is a health risk to the mother (it can kill her to do so).
On the mandating kidney donations, i do not feel we need to get to that level. Admittedly we Do have major issues with people waiting for too long and dying cause there are not enough people Willing to donate, but i do not feel that means we should have the govt step in and mandate who gets your kidney/liver etc.

MikeKerriii
04-19-2015, 10:32 PM
No one is endorsing RM's style of posting. It is well known that he is 'role-playing' for lack of a better phrase. His posts sometimes contain valid point (albeit often buried deep). These points make some people uncomfortable because they challenge their particular belief system. Particularly those whose belief system is universal and absolute. They hold that things are always all good or all bad.

And sometimes his posts are openly racist idiocy that are only really suitable for places like Storm-front or a KKK sign

Bos Mutus
04-19-2015, 11:24 PM
Why then do they extend to illegal immigrants who by definition are criminals?

Well, like I said in a previous thread...even if we don't feel obligated to protect the rights of non-citizens, we at least should not be one violating them.


If abortion is not murder, then why is killing a pregnant woman 2 counts. So since we DO have more than half the country that feels that way, that sets the precedent that to abort a feotus is murder, therefore it is wrong. That's why i feel that way.

We already agree that allowing abortion, but calling it a murder when someone else kills the baby are inconsistent laws.

I would probably favor lessening the murder charge.


As i have said for a while, i feel abortions are only ok in cases of rape/incest (basically when the woman has gotten pregnant cause of a crime) or in the case where being forced to carry the baby to term is a health risk to the mother (it can kill her to do so).

To me, this shows that the abortion is not really the same as murder...because no one would support murdering an already born child if it became known to be the product of a rape. So, there is definitely a difference between murdering a child and aborting.


On the mandating kidney donations, i do not feel we need to get to that level. Admittedly we Do have major issues with people waiting for too long and dying cause there are not enough people Willing to donate, but i do not feel that means we should have the govt step in and mandate who gets your kidney/liver etc.

Right...anyway, my point in starting this whole thing is the for Pro-choice people, the central issue is the woman's right to make decisions about her own body without govt. interference. Which is why someone can be Pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty. They are two different issues.

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2015, 01:26 AM
And sometimes his posts are openly racist idiocy that are only really suitable for places like Storm-front or a KKK sign

And sometimes my posts are absolutely on the mark.

Rainmaker
04-20-2015, 02:57 AM
And sometimes his posts are openly racist idiocy that are only really suitable for places like Storm-front or a KKK sign

Listen Ass for Brains, spare us the hasbara routine... It has been tried before (by people a hell of a lot smarter than you) and it ain't flying... You couldn't make a coherent argument, and then got exposed lying about your old man's service record, so now you're the typical liberal, petulant whiner constantly crying racist and screaming about trolls every other post... FYI, Rainmaker's BLACK business partner happens to refer to Himself as High Yellow, whenever anyone asks about his ethnicity. Now, speaking of Yellow... Piss off Jerk.

MikeKerriii
04-20-2015, 05:43 AM
Listen Ass for Brains, spare us the hasbara routine... It has been tried before (by people a hell of a lot smarter than you) and it ain't flying... You couldn't make a coherent argument, and then got exposed lying about your old man's service record, so now you're the typical liberal, petulant whiner constantly crying racist and screaming about trolls every other post... FYI, Rainmaker's BLACK business partner happens to refer to Himself as High Yellow, whenever anyone asks about his ethnicity. Now, speaking of Yellow... Piss off Jerk.
a. slight variation on the "some of my best friends are" idiocy

I do belive that the bit about how you imaginary freind calls himself is simply a lie.

I got the Unit number wrong they corrected it, BFD bigot

Mjölnir
04-20-2015, 11:15 AM
Gentlemen, we can stop the personal insults / back and forth now.

Thank you

Rainmaker
04-20-2015, 06:27 PM
a. slight variation on the "some of my best friends are" idiocy

I do belive that the bit about how you imaginary freind calls himself is simply a lie.

I got the Unit number wrong they corrected it, BFD bigot

OK, We got it , "Nelson", "Mike".... 300th Division, 100th Division, JR, Sr., the III. what difference does it Make?

You've posted the same thing in half a dozen different places already... You're like a Dyslexic, Nigerian spammer selling factually challenged on-line bullshit, and hoping you'll find somebody gullible enough to fall for your scam.

Seriously Mike, You're suffering from one of the worst cases of Progressive MSM, Soviet Mind Control Brainwashing that Rainmaker's seen here yet.... Try Listening to some attuned vibrations and see if we can un-screw your twisted little mind....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2imBDXFp2vc

MikeKerriii
04-20-2015, 08:09 PM
OK, We got it , "Nelson", "Mike".... 300th Division, 100th Division, JR, Sr., the III. what difference does it Make?

You've posted the same thing in half a dozen different places already... You're like a Dyslexic, Nigerian spammer selling factually challenged on-line bullshit, and hoping you'll find somebody gullible enough to fall for your scam.

Seriously Mike, You're suffering from one of the worst cases of Progressive MSM, Soviet Mind Control Brainwashing that Rainmaker's seen here yet.... Try Listening to some attuned vibrations and see if we can un-screw your twisted little mind....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2imBDXFp2vc



The unit was corrected and you idiocy about my name is just you tenability to read.

You poor bigit, you can't hand the heat of admiring that you are a openly racist troll.

garhkal
04-20-2015, 08:32 PM
We already agree that allowing abortion, but calling it a murder when someone else kills the baby are inconsistent laws.

I would probably favor lessening the murder charge.

I guess we agree there then.



Right...anyway, my point in starting this whole thing is the for Pro-choice people, the central issue is the woman's right to make decisions about her own body without govt. interference. Which is why someone can be Pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty. They are two different issues.

But why just the Woman gets the choice? Why does the father not get a say in the matter?
As was mentioned a while back, a guy in the military NEEDS to get his wife's permission to get a vascetomy. So why the double standard of her body her choice, but his body THEIR choice..

Mjölnir
04-20-2015, 08:49 PM
http://images.bidnessetc.com/content/uploads/images/source3/thor_gif_by_bookmaniac2013-d3ghexl-e16e74a63567ecb44ade5c87002bb1d9.gif

Bos Mutus
04-20-2015, 09:02 PM
I guess we agree there then.

But why just the Woman gets the choice? Why does the father not get a say in the matter?

because it is the woman's body.


As was mentioned a while back, a guy in the military NEEDS to get his wife's permission to get a vascetomy.

First off...I don't believe this is a system-wide rule. I don't doubt that individual doctor's often prefer it.

Can you cite his as a rule anywhere...or was it simply your doctor's personal preference?


So why the double standard of her body her choice, but his body THEIR choice..

I agree that if that were a rule, it would be sort of a double standard, except for the fact that they come from two different sources...
Again as mentioned awhile back, I don't believe this vasectomy policy is the law and I don't even think it is service-wide policy, merely a clinic or doctor's policy, that might be well-accepted...

Anyway, I'm not in favor of REQUIRING the wife's permission for a vasectomy...

Bos Mutus
04-20-2015, 09:26 PM
From a search:



Dear Q&B,
We want my husband to get a vasectomy, but we heard that they have military vasectomy rules for who can get one based on age, number of kids you already have and even the kids' gender. My husband's buddy told him that the doctor said he can't get a vasectomy unless he is over 30-years-old or has three kids of any gender or, if he only has two kids, one boy and one girl. Is that true?
Sincerely,
Fix My Husband
Hi, Fix.
We've heard a lot of conflicting reports on the subject of vasectomies and the military, too. And it seems like everyone you ask has a different answer.
There are two types of military vasectomy coverage -- one for military dependents and one for service members.
For military dependents who receive health care through Tricare (http://www.military.com/benefits/tricare), military vasectomy rules, according to Tricare's policy, are very cut and dry. (Pardon the pun.)
Yes, they cover vasectomies. No, they do not cover reversals.
If the patient is a military dependent, he can self-refer (if on Tricare Standard) to a urologist or receive a referral from his primary-care manager (if on Tricare Prime). And while the urologist may tell him he should wait, Tricare itself has no age or number of children requirements. However, they do not cover reversals, so you better be sure sterilization is what you want.

For active-duty service members, things are a little bit more complicated and access to the procedure depends heavily on the provider.
According to Pentagon officials, there are no hard and fast (again, the puns ... ) military vasectomy rules for active-duty members. While some states require a "cool-down period" between when the consent form is signed and the surgery is performed, none of the services has written policies in place.
But here is where it gets complicated: Because there are no specific rules, whether a service member is permitted to receive a vasectomy is completely up to the doctor in charge or even the physician's assistant in his unit. And that's where the rules your husband's buddy heard about come in.
The doctor at Madigan Army Medical Center, Washington, may have different rules about who he gives the procedure to than the urologist at National Naval Medical Center, Maryland.
"There are clinically recognized standards for consideration of a sterilization procedure, to include age of the patient, number of children, reasons for desiring the procedure, etc.," Maj. James Brindle, a Pentagon spokesman, told us in a written statement. "Many of these can be subjective, so it is ultimately up to the independent clinical judgment of the provider to determine if a patient is a good candidate for the procedure."
As for reversals, some military hospitals will perform them for active-duty members; however, there is often a long waiting list.
Sincerely,
Team Q&B

http://www.military.com/spouse/military-benefits/questions-benefits-what-are-the-military-vasectomy-rules.html

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2015, 10:00 PM
When I got mine (back at the end of the civil war) the clinic at Tyndall AFB followed Florida law which required that both spouses (where it was relevant) had to attend a counseling session. There wasn't a permission requirement but the counseling seemed like a good idea to me. This wives' tale about needing your wife's permission has been around for a long time.

BTW: a thought for contemplation. I agree that it is a woman's body and therefore her decision regarding having an abortion but in the event the father does not agree shouldn't his parental responsibilities (child support) then be voided?

((pot stirred, heading back to my bridge))

sandsjames
04-21-2015, 02:26 AM
because it is the woman's body. I hate that answer, so much. It's such a cop out. It's the man's baby, just as it is the woman's. If that's not the case then get rid of child support completely. If the woman was that worried about "her body" then she wouldn't be getting knocked up in the first place by someone she didn't want to share a baby with.

Pro-life or pro-choice, "it's her body" is weak. It being her body has nothing to do with the choice of keeping or aborting the baby. The choice is about whether the woman (and occasionally the man can have some input) wants to raise a child. It's not about the 9 months, it's about the following 18 years.






I

Bos Mutus
04-21-2015, 04:45 AM
It's not about the 9 months, it's about the following 18 years.

I

It's rare that a post on this forum shakes me at the boots and shifts the whole paradigm for me.

This was one...especially the last sentence. You are right, of the women I know who had or considered an abortion, this is what it was about.

Nominee for post of the year...I need to remember this one. Thank you, sir

USN - Retired
04-21-2015, 12:58 PM
I hate that answer, so much. It's such a cop out. It's the man's baby, just as it is the woman's. If that's not the case then get rid of child support completely. If the woman was that worried about "her body" then she wouldn't be getting knocked up in the first place by someone she didn't want to share a baby with.

Pro-life or pro-choice, "it's her body" is weak. It being her body has nothing to do with the choice of keeping or aborting the baby. The choice is about whether the woman (and occasionally the man can have some input) wants to raise a child. It's not about the 9 months, it's about the following 18 years.



If a pregnant woman really doesn't want to be a mother, it is probably better to just euthanize the fetus. If a mother really doesn't want to be a mother, then her child's life will probably be a very sad life.

sandsjames
04-21-2015, 01:14 PM
If a pregnant woman really doesn't want to be a mother, it is probably better to just euthanize the fetus. If a mother really doesn't want to be a mother, then her child's life will probably be a very sad life.I think that any argument about how the life of the child will be is pointless. There is no way of knowing. It may be a sad life. It may be a great life. It may be turn out to be a serial killer or it may turn out to be a scientist who discovers a cure for cancer. It's all conjecture.

Stalwart
04-21-2015, 02:15 PM
If a pregnant woman really doesn't want to be a mother, it is probably better to just euthanize the fetus. If a mother really doesn't want to be a mother, then her child's life will probably be a very sad life.

Better for her or better for the child?

My daughter was surrendered to an orphanage and when I see her I do not see a sad child or a sad life; quite the opposite.

Stalwart
04-21-2015, 02:18 PM
I think that any argument about how the life of the child will be is pointless. There is no way of knowing. It may be a sad life. It may be a great life. It may be turn out to be a serial killer or it may turn out to be a scientist who discovers a cure for cancer. It's all conjecture.

Very true, not every child of hardship turns out with a rough life, nor does every child of privilege turn into an upstanding citizen.

TJMAC77SP
04-21-2015, 04:04 PM
It's rare that a post on this forum shakes me at the boots and shifts the whole paradigm for me.

This was one...especially the last sentence. You are right, of the women I know who had or considered an abortion, this is what it was about.

Nominee for post of the year...I need to remember this one. Thank you, sir

Agree with you on this. SJ was spot on. I have always said that while intellectually I support a woman's right to choose I am glad that I personally have never been in a situation where this choice was needed because at a time like that things can change pretty quickly. Sound bites and hyperbole just doesn't help then.

garhkal
04-21-2015, 09:44 PM
First off...I don't believe this is a system-wide rule. I don't doubt that individual doctor's often prefer it.

Can you cite his as a rule anywhere...or was it simply your doctor's personal preference?

Of the 9 commands i have been stationed at, only 2 DID not seem to have that rule in place. And that is coming from both talking with those IN Medical as well as those who visited it.
Ergo it does seem like it's policy.




I agree that if that were a rule, it would be sort of a double standard, except for the fact that they come from two different sources...
Again as mentioned awhile back, I don't believe this vasectomy policy is the law and I don't even think it is service-wide policy, merely a clinic or doctor's policy, that might be well-accepted...

Anyway, I'm not in favor of REQUIRING the wife's permission for a vasectomy...

Good to know.