pBills Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Freedom of Speech means that you're free to speak out against the government. It doesn't mean anything else. Really? I thought people had the freedom to speak their mind on all subjects. Not just government?
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I'm somewhat responsible so I look after what I have and i also realize its all I can handle . If my wife got pregnant I would hope abortion would not cross her mind. What else do you want? So I'm against abortion I'm obligated to adopt? I wouldn't say obligated. The fact of the matter is that abortion is unpalatable and so is the alternative. Everyone wants everything but it just isn't that simple. There are far more important issues in this world to deal with at this time. Abortion is something both sides use to keep people from facing the real problems.
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Really? I thought people had the freedom to speak their mind on all subjects. Not just government? Take a Civics class. Before you do that, walk into your boss' office and tell him he's a piece of **** and his wife is a c-word. See if your "Freedom of Speech" defense holds up in court after you get fired.
pBills Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I wouldn't say obligated. The fact of the matter is that abortion is unpalatable and so is the alternative. Everyone wants everything but it just isn't that simple. There are far more important issues in this world to deal with at this time. Abortion is something both sides use to keep people from facing the real problems. On the scale of real problems, abortion may be on the lower end. However it is still a real problem.
Astrojanitor Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Duh Big Man:Thanks for starting 2010 with more non-sensical bull ****. Go read your copy of the communist hand book. what's a communist hand book?
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 On the scale of real problems, abortion may be on the lower end. However it is still a real problem. Why?
Celtic_soulja Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 If that reject owned 600 stations he'd bankrupt half of them and a conservative would scoop them up and broadcast again...the radio don't control the nation...our nation controls the radio...the money makers are the ones that have the biggest fan bases...so this is a ridiculous beef to be discussing
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Its kind of simplistic to think that if abortion was illegal, all those babies that would "have to" be born would be "unwanted." You mean like the idea that if it's illegal that it's going to stop or the numbers are going to change? Im guessing that at LEAST 9/10 of those so called "unwanted" kids would move into the "wanted" column once the mom looks into that kid's eyes for the first time. Parenthood and protection of one's newborn and child is a pretty powerful !@#$ing thing. One of the basic instincts of nature. That's right, birth is all about sunshine and puppy dogs. When did you turn into the "After School Special" producer?
Astrojanitor Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 On the scale of real problems, abortion may be on the lower end. However it is still a real problem. not really. what is allowed to be aborted is a scientific non-entity. And it's a matter of choice. To revert to a cliche, don't want an abortion? don't have one. The real problem is keeping these unwanted pregnancies from happening the first place. Eliminating abortion does not magically grant people with social/sexual responsibility. How is this done? No clue. But the abortion issue is a red herring.
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 what's a communist hand book? It's the one on my shelf to the left of "The Radical Right Wing Guide" that the liberal tards on this board regularly accuse me of having. Welcome to why there's no difference between the parties or the idiots who follow them.
pBills Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Why? Why because the debate is life of the unborn vs a right to choose. That to me makes it a real problem. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. freedom of speech Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint.
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 what's a communist hand book? It's the one on my shelf to the left of "The Radical Right Wing Guide" that the liberal tards on this board regularly accuse me of having. Welcome to why there's no difference between the parties or the idiots who follow them.
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Why because the debate is life of the unborn vs a right to choose. That to me makes it a real problem. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. Thanks for making my point. freedom of speechRight, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a "clear and present danger" — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint. Glorious. Now accuse me of being nothing more than a google searcher. Again. Who gets to decide "risk or threat of safety to other public interests that is serious and imminent". This is a private message board. Free Speech is up to the person who owns it or those he charges with its protection.
pBills Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Thanks for making my point. Glorious. Now accuse me of being nothing more than a google searcher. Again. Who gets to decide "risk or threat of safety to other public interests that is serious and imminent". This is a private message board. Free Speech is up to the person who owns it or those he charges with its protection. How did that make your point? You see that as a non-real problem. I do. Your point was not made. Of course when one uses a message board or when one takes on a position at a company they are bound by rules. Which can at times restrict their freedom of speech. That still does not mean that someone can't stand in the middle of a park or next to a group of people and express their opinion as long as it doesn't incite violence, etc. In regards to Rush... as much as I think he is a piece of crap. He has the right to speak his mind. And hell he's lucky enough to get paid to do it.
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 How did that make your point? You see that as a non-real problem. I do. Your point was not made. How do you not see it? Of course when one uses a message board or when one takes on a position at a company they are bound by rules. Which can at times restrict their freedom of speech. Uh, thanks? That still does not mean that someone can't stand in the middle of a park or next to a group of people and express their opinion as long as it doesn't incite violence, etc. Did I ever say differently?
pBills Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 How do you not see it? Uh, thanks? Did I ever say differently? I have said there are bigger "real" problems as you put it. But to me, in my opinion, it is a "real" problem.
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 Really? I thought people had the freedom to speak their mind on all subjects. Not just government? I don't think it covers sending multiple private messages to people who've requested that one stop being an ass, however. Within the context, I'd say the statement, though incorrect, was "close enough".
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I know there is a dispute when a fetus becomes a human. To me it couldn't be more black and white. From day one its a kid. Anyway, didn't mean to hi jack Thereby illustrating the crux of the whole issue: in lots of people's opinion, life begins at conception. That's not the issue. The issue is that those same people want everyone to share their opinion. The moment someone proves - factually and empirically - that life begins at conception, I'll start lobbying for a ban on abortion as murder. Until that happens, it's nothing more than an article of faith that, like any article of faith, shouldn't be forced on anyone. Thats a completely !@#$ing ridiculous example to disprove what Im saying and you know it. And I DID was I was "GUESSING" at what the ACTUAL "ratio" would be. So stop. It may have been a completely !@#$ing ridiculous example...but let's be honest, it was completely !@#$ing ridiculous guess on your part as well.
Dante Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I'm looking at it from the pragmatist angle. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 500k kids going to bed under government roofs every night. The abortion numbers, depending on who you believe, are between 500k and 4,000,000 annually. Let's assume that its the lower number. Let's then assume that abortion becomes illegal. Let's also assume that means half as many women get pregnant "accidentally". Half of those end up being born (because making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it anymore than the Drug War has kept LSD off playgrounds). Half of those end up in the system. That means in 4 years the number of unwanted children in America that the government is providing for is now a million. We have a hard enough time providing for the kids that are already here. Let's get that knocked out before we grow the problem exponentially, shall we? I'm kinda warming up to Alaska D;s practicality angle. I think we can apply to other things as well. I say, all of the convicts in federall and state pens be exterminated. After all, most of them have grown up to be problems. They cost a crap load of money to maintain. I say fry em and use them for fertilizer. Can you imagine how much of a deterrent this would be to would be thugs, rapists and child molesters. Look at me getting all pragmatic. We would be one step closer to Obamas utopia. Nice
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Posted March 26, 2010 I'm kinda warming up to Alaska D;s practicality angle. I think we can apply to other things as well. I say, all of the convicts in federall and state pens be exterminated. After all, most of them have grown up to be problems. They cost a crap load of money to maintain. I say fry em and use them for fertilizer. Can you imagine how much of a deterrent this would be to would be thugs, rapists and child molesters. Look at me getting all pragmatic. We would be one step closer to Obamas utopia. Nice If it were actually that easy. At the end of the day, no matter how much everyone wants to live in the ideological Utopia there isn't a way to stop abortion and making it illegal only adds another dimension to the problem. I find it laughable that "conservatives" think removing liberty in their examples is somehow different than what the liberals do.
Recommended Posts