A Sea Of Red

TH Spangler wrote: ↑January 21st, 2021, 5:48 pm

Jonathan Carone wrote: ↑January 21st, 2021, 5:35 pm As long as things like healthcare, property laws, and tax benefits are tied to marriage, there has to be equal opportunity.

I actually don’t view governmental marriage as the same as religious marriage. It’s different standing before a government official and taking a vow to each other than it is to stand in front of a pastor and take a vow to each other and to God.

Civil unions and Biblical marriages are two different things.

But Abortion is Abortion.

How many civil unions did Trump have?

I believe he had 2 marriages that ended in divorce and is happily married now. No civil unions I'm aware of. 5 children I think.

Now this headline made me laugh

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/ ... e-fidelity

Casting doubt on the process because they know they won’t like the result. It does sound familiar!

stokesjokes wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2021, 11:31 pm Casting doubt on the process because they know they won’t like the result. It does sound familiar!

SJ what did you think about Brennan calling out libertarians?

SJ, Brennan will roll you under that bus when he's finished using your vote

I don't think @stokesjokes voted for Biden. He never indicated he did. I could be wrong though.

Nah, I voted Jorgensen. Does that put me on a list somewhere?

It seems @TH Spangler makes a lot of assumptions about who people vote for. I purposefully didn't mention who i voted for but I'm sure TH thinks he knows.

Guilty as chargerd I have no idea who you voted for.

Unfortunately we live in a time when saying who you voted for can cost you your job. I saw a story the other day where the Carolina Hurricanes released a new employee when they found out he worked in a behind the scene job for president Turmps staff.

I can't get fired

That is only kind of true

The main reason I don't talk about who I vote for is people instantly put you in a box. I don't fit into any poltical box and my poltical views fall on all sides of the poltical spectrum depending on the issue. This year I voted for people with R's next to their names, D's next to their names and a couple from 3rd parties.

I decided a couple years ago to keep who I vote for private. People assume they know and it is pretty comical.

thepostman wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 10:47 am I can't get fired

That is only kind of true

The main reason I don't talk about who I vote for is people instantly put you in a box. I don't fit into any poltical box and my poltical views fall on all sides of the poltical spectrum depending on the issue. This year I voted for people with R's next to their names, D's next to their names and a couple from 3rd parties.

I decided a couple years ago to keep who I vote for private. People assume they know and it is pretty comical.

I dunno. Sounds very North Korea-y here. But it certainly worked for Stalin

If you think that sounds like North Korea then I'd suggest you read up on North Korea. There are also some great documentaries. I guess you're going down the road of comparing the Biden administration with evil regimes much like Democrats did with Trump. It is rhe go to move to compare the opposition to evil regimes.

thepostman wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 12:28 pm If you think that sounds like North Korea then I'd suggest you read up on North Korea. There are also some great documentaries. I guess you're going down the road of comparing the Biden administration with evil regimes much like Democrats did with Trump. It is rhe go to move to compare the opposition to evil regimes.

Purging militaries of soldiers and sailors not loyal to The Regime? Don’t recall the Trump Administration doing that or even proposing that with Rank and file members

But what is discussed is literally already done for military members requiring security clearances. This is nothing new. It is just being spun in such a way to scare people.

Same thing was done by democrats when trying to make the Trump administration look like some kind of evil dictatorship. It is the same tactic.

The only difference is it taps into your poltical bias so you buy into it.

thepostman wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 12:28 pm If you think that sounds like North Korea then I'd suggest you read up on North Korea. There are also some great documentaries. I guess you're going down the road of comparing the Biden administration with evil regimes much like Democrats did with Trump. It is rhe go to move to compare the opposition to evil regimes.

No he's just saying there seems to be a "y" in the road and we might be taking a wrong turn. I would register unAffiliated if I were you. Doing other wise might cost you your next promotion.

thepostman wrote: ↑January 24th, 2021, 12:36 pm But what is discussed is literally already done for military members requiring security clearances. This is nothing new. It is just being spun in such a way to scare people.

Same thing was done by democrats when trying to make the Trump administration look like some kind of evil dictatorship. It is the same tactic.

The only difference is it taps into your poltical bias so you buy into it.

This is something different. I get it when it comes to promotions or security clearances. But this was a different animal all together

It wasn't anything new. I don't really know how else I can change your mind but I promise you it was nothing new. Especially for events like these.

I am whole-life (anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-death penalty, etc)

So, I see RvW being discussed. Perhaps yal are not aware, but overturning RvW would not ban abortion. Abortion was legal in every state until the late 1800's, even the early Puritans practiced it (with the majority of brides being pregnant on their wedding day). It wasn't until the late 1800's that certain states began banning abortion outright or restricting it. But, plot twist, most people in the US had access to legal abortion facilities within their own state when RvW was brought to court.

What is particularly ironic is that Margaret Sanger was actually for the prevention of conception, but not abortion. In fact, she straight up blasted abortionists as butchers and she wanted to reduce women's use of them. Sanger's fight was to make it legal for women to get actual information on how their bodies functioned from a doctor (yes, it was illegal to learn about) and know about how to prevent conception during intercourse (yes, that was illegal to even know about). Sanger's work centered around the problem of poor mothers having huge numbers of children that either died extremely young or entered adulthood never being loved and cared for properly (thus overwhelming the legal system with violent criminals or being a financial blight on the system otherwise). Even the accusations of racism are unfounded. Sanger straight up told a racist man, who had told her to focus on black people first, to scram. She spoke to group of KKK wives and said it was the weirdest experience she ever had and that she feared for her life, especially since if she were to even mention abortion the women would have acted like (in the modern vernacular) Karens. Her books were actually banned and burned by Hitler because she dared to fund anti-Hitler militants in Germany before that was a cool thing to do.

Had to bump this thread because this is just over the top silly:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieport ... lieve-her/

How is this a go to move in court when sued? "No reasonable person would believe me, so this is on them!!"

Just another bizarre turn in this story.

Two things that baffle me with this saga:

People continue to watch, listen to, and trust the media companies and personalities who repeated and ran with her claims. They either knew better and repeated them anyway or they lack any level of critical thinking skills that would have easily shown her claims to be at least dubious. In either case, why would you trust anything else they say?

People also continue to uncritically accept all of the other claims Powell and her associates made. If she admits in court that she shouldn’t be believed on these things, why trust the rest?

thepostman wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 9:21 am How is this a go to move in court when sued? "No reasonable person would believe me, so this is on them!!"

Just another bizarre turn in this story.

Rachel Maddow made the same defense. It’s a standard legal practice

I'm aware that it is used often which is why I said what I said. It is a weak defense and somehow it works sometimes.