kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:God, the 'pubs are going to make us elect another Democrat...



Christie isn't totally out of the question for them, I don't think. It seems the tea party Krampuss are being ostracized by their party to add to their self-inflicted loneliness, so I don't think they're a concern (thankfully).

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 189 Private Messages rjquillin
chemvictim wrote:I'd be worried about my financial health with that guy at the helm, plus the social issues. I haven't heard much about what he'd actually try to do regarding social issues, but somehow I doubt he'd be a champion of women's rights.

Did I miss something? Why would you think this? I would expect he'd be a champion of all our rights.

CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Did I miss something? Why would you think this? I would expect he'd be a champion of all our rights.



I think this because he is one of those life-begins-at-conception, fetal personhood politicians. That can be a real bummer for women, including those who have been raped or whose health is threatened.

Why would you expect him to be a champion for all our rights?

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen

I could never vote for a guy who talks a soup kitchen into opening up during their off hours just so he can have a photo-op of himself washing already clean dishes.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I think this because he is one of those life-begins-at-conception, fetal personhood politicians. That can be a real bummer for women, including those who have been raped or whose health is threatened.

Why would you expect him to be a champion for all our rights?



With the possible exception of Supreme Court appointments, US presidents have very little influence over abortion laws, and even that influence is hard to predict in that appointees still need to be confirmed, one doesn't know when justices will retire, and one doesn't even know (in many cases) how they will ultimately decide on cases before them.

Abortion laws can be something of a major issue at the state and local levels, but the influence of a president on them is *vastly* overestimated by many people.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:You mean in your very humble opinion, right?

Because Fox is no worse in that regard (obfuscating) than any of them. And obviously, there are many that disagree with you, if they trust it.


Edit: Silly me, I'd put MSNBC and CNN ahead of Fox in the obfuscating facts vs. opinion area.



Yes, those who trust Fox will distrust any channel that is seen as being of a different opinion, and will say "those other guys are worse" or "those other guys are just as bad". It seems you have managed to say both.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
jawlz wrote:With the possible exception of Supreme Court appointments, US presidents have very little influence over abortion laws, and even that influence is hard to predict in that appointmees still need to be confirmed, one doesn't know when justices will retire, and one doesn't even know (in many cases) how they will ultimately decide on cases before them.

Abortion laws can be something of a major issue at the state and local levels, but the influence of a president on them is *vastly* overestimated by many people.



I'm not speaking for chem here but myself. I know that a president has a hard time doing anything to affect abortion laws. However, I think such issues speak to a person's social agenda/policy/beliefs. Those beliefs are polemic to my own and I couldn't support someone whose social views are so different than my own (and different than the majority of the American people, depending on which polls you trust).

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
kylemittskus wrote:As of now, it looks like Paul Ryan vs. Hillary Clinton. Of course, this is likely going to change, but if we were to vote right now and this was indeed the match-up, I'd feel again as if I had no good option. Ryan is great on fiscal issues, but he's a nutjob wrt social issues, IMO, of course. And I have no reason to think that Hillary is anywhere close to being a viable candidate.



For an analysis of the "Ryan Budgets" that have been a major part of his reputation for fiscal smartitude, I would recommend my several posts starting on page 19 of this thread. The fact that I wrote them, of course, has nothing to do with why I think they are well worth study.

Edit: handicapping the 2016 election at the end of 2013 is just crazy. I'll pick the Rams to win the Super Bowl in 2016.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:With the possible exception of Supreme Court appointments, US presidents have very little influence over abortion laws, and even that influence is hard to predict in that appointmees still need to be confirmed, one doesn't know when justices will retire, and one doesn't even know (in many cases) how they will ultimately decide on cases before them.

Abortion laws can be something of a major issue at the state and local levels, but the influence of a president on them is *vastly* overestimated by many people.



What Kyle said.

I can be a little extreme in my feelings about this issue. I think it was said here before, that at the heart of the issue is the balancing of a woman's interests versus that of the fetus. A person who believes that life begins at conception AND that the embryo or fetus deserves equal protection under the law is in total disregard of the interests of the woman/incubator. I read somewhere that the Republicans were having a pow wow to learn how to talk to women. I think I can solve this issue for them - find some politicians who actually believe that women are people and they won't need a translator.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:What Kyle said.

I can be a little extreme in my feelings about this issue. I think it was said here before, that at the heart of the issue is the balancing of a woman's interests versus that of the fetus. A person who believes that life begins at conception AND that the embryo or fetus deserves equal protection under the law is in total disregard of the interests of the woman/incubator. I read somewhere that the Republicans were having a pow wow to learn how to talk to women. I think I can solve this issue for them - find some politicians who actually believe that women are people and they won't need a translator.



While that may sometimes be the case, it is not necessarily true. A person who holds those beliefs and is faced with a situation where a pregnant woman faces untenable complications due to pregnancy is faced with a dilemma, certainly, but there's nothing there that requires a disregard (much less a "total disregard") in the well-being or interests of women; that is not intrinsic to believing believing in legal protections for fetuses.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:Yes, those who trust Fox will distrust any channel that is seen as being of a different opinion, and will say "those other guys are worse" or "those other guys are just as bad". It seems you have managed to say both.



As usual, you are late to the party. Go back some posts, and it's not just Fox, but the others as well. And yes, they are all bad. Go home, you're drunk!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:While that may sometimes be the case, it is not necessarily true. A person who holds those beliefs and is faced with a situation where a pregnant woman faces untenable complications due to pregnancy is faced with a dilemma, certainly, but there's nothing there that requires a disregard (much less a "total disregard") in the well-being or interests of women; that is not intrinsic to believing believing in legal protections for fetuses.



Okay, maybe they do think about it and maybe even feel bad about it. I doubt that's much comfort to dead or ailing women and their families. If they let you die in pain rather than perform a needed procedure, that's close enough to disregard for me.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:Okay, maybe they do think about it and maybe even feel bad about it. I doubt that's much comfort to dead or ailing women and their families. If they let you die in pain rather than perform a needed procedure, that's close enough to disregard for me.



You are misreading the word 'dilemma,' which, as I use it, means a choice between two equally bad alternatives, and you are assuming (1) the most extreme circumstances (a painful death [not that I am assuming a death, but even if I were, why would it be painful? Or does the anti-abortion viewpoint tie into an anti-painkiller view?] as a result of not allowing an abortion) and (2) that those against abortion are, at best, only minimally sympathetic to pregnant women.

In these types of discussions, I find that it is generally useful to give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and to assume that (s)he is arguing in good faith and is not evil, if only to make your own arguments more persuasive. Even if Person A is a complete jackass who doesn't have any real reasoning behind his arguments, presumably there is a Person B out there who holds the same views without relying on jackassery to hold them.

In this case, there are those who are both sincerely against abortion and sincerely in support of women as equal persons fully entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else. They may well be wrong to be against abortion (and, if pressed, I would argue that they are), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine their views generously, instead of demonizing them and presenting the most extreme scenarios possible.

[edit - wow, no woot filters for jackass! Neat!]

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
coynedj wrote:For an analysis of the "Ryan Budgets" that have been a major part of his reputation for fiscal smartitude, I would recommend my several posts starting on page 19 of this thread. The fact that I wrote them, of course, has nothing to do with why I think they are well worth study.

Edit: handicapping the 2016 election at the end of 2013 is just crazy. I'll pick the Rams to win the Super Bowl in 2016.



I did say "as of now" and that "it is likely to change" and "if we were to vote right now." I fully realize that this isn't what is going to be in 2016, but these are (major) players in the discussion, at least for now, so I think it's valuable to discuss them and their respective parties by association. And I will read your posts re: Ryan's budgets.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
jawlz wrote:They may well be wrong to be against abortion (and, if pressed, I would argue that they are), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine their views generously, instead of demonizing them and presenting the most extreme scenarios possible.

[edit - wow, no woot filters for jackass! Neat!]



I agree with this. I also think it's important to keep in mind, though, that what we see, and what's presented to us is the crazies of the parties. And I don't think it's the media giving us these examples.

I would argue, and strongly, that until very recently, the Republican party stood behind the "values" expressed by the loonies. With the total understanding that the loonies don't represent every party member, they do represent the party's desired and/or stated beliefs when they're the people being given to us as options. Need I start a list from the past five years. With this in mind, I don't think that it's completely absurd to assume that a conservative Republican falls in line with the conservative Republican stance, even if they might not really. What people claim to believe, what people actually believe, and what people practice are generally three completely different things.

Also, win for free use of jackass!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:In this case, there are those who are both sincerely against abortion and sincerely in support of women as equal persons fully entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else. They may well be wrong to be against abortion (and, if pressed, I would argue that they are), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't examine their views generously, instead of demonizing them and presenting the most extreme scenarios possible.

[edit - wow, no woot filters for jackass! Neat!]



I disagree. I don't think they're evil (well, some might be, I don't know). I can appreciate a moral dilemma, but it's your actions that count. I really don't care how badly you feel about it, if you're doing me harm.

These people would make it unlawful for me to have an abortion under any circumstances. Relatively minor things like big medical bills, loss of income, career interruption, etc. do not tip the balance in my favor. They would let me suffer grave illness or even die, in extreme circumstances. It's always embryo >>>> woman, every time. That's a little hard to get over, and it's difficult to give it a generous view. I take it personally.

Savita Halappanavar died a painful and unnecessary death. I think it's very odd that you bring up the idea of painkillers, as if that really makes it better. That is far more generous than I could ever be.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote: Savita Halappanavar died a painful and unnecessary death. I think it's very odd that you bring up the idea of painkillers, as if that really makes it better. That is far more generous than I could ever be.



She was also in Ireland, for full disclosure's sake. I'm not saying it hurts or helps your argument, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj
MarkDaSpark wrote:As usual, you are late to the party. Go back some posts, and it's not just Fox, but the others as well. And yes, they are all bad. Go home, you're drunk!



Yes, I'm usually not up to the minute. I only watch the board occasionally.

And you have won today's "missed the point" award.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I disagree. I don't think they're evil (well, some might be, I don't know). I can appreciate a moral dilemma, but it's your actions that count. I really don't care how badly you feel about it, if you're doing me harm.



OK. Although do note that I haven't suggested any way to resolve the dilemma, and different abortion opponents will suggest different resolutions. Not all will place the fetus as carrying a more primary 'right to life' than the mother.

chemvictim wrote:These people would make it unlawful for me to have an abortion under any circumstances. Relatively minor things like big medical bills, loss of income, career interruption, etc. do not tip the balance in my favor. They would let me suffer grave illness or even die, in extreme circumstances. It's always embryo >>>> woman, every time. That's a little hard to get over, and it's difficult to give it a generous view. I take it personally.



You are painting with an extraordinarily wide brush when a smaller one would do. As I said earlier, I will grant that there are jackasses out there. Not everyone who is against abortion, however, is also a proponent of pregnant woman facing all those obstacles (bills, career disruption, etc), nor is everyone who is against abortion generally also against any abortion all of the time. As others have alluded to in the past, there are are many who see a gradient of acceptability and believe abortion should be illegal in some cases but not in all.

chemvictim wrote:url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/14/savita-halappanavar-medically-unnecessary-death] Savita Halappanavar[/url] died a painful and unnecessary death. I think it's very odd that you bring up the idea of painkillers, as if that really makes it better. That is far more generous than I could ever be.



That is a sad story.

I do not find it odd to bring up the idea of painkillers however; I would not have brought them up at all if you hadn't initially written about *painful* deaths. Obviously deaths are something that should generally be avoided. But death and pain, though they often go together, need not automatically go together - hence my question about whether we're assuming that there is some correlation between being against abortion and against painkillers (note - I am being slightly specious here, in that I do not think there is such a link, but am instead trying to make a broader point, which goes back into the 'don't demonize those who disagree with you' idea).

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:She was also in Ireland, for full disclosure's sake. I'm not saying it hurts or helps your argument, though.



I think it's a fine example of what not to do.

Catholic hospitals here in the U.S. have had some issues. But that's a different problem.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote:You are painting with an extraordinarily wide brush when a smaller one would do. As I said earlier, I will grant that there are jackasses out there. Not everyone who is against abortion, however, is also a proponent of pregnant woman facing all those obstacles (bills, career disruption, etc), nor is everyone who is against abortion generally also against any abortion all of the time. As others have alluded to in the past, there are are many who see a gradient of acceptability and believe abortion should be illegal in some cases but not in all.



I thought we were talking about the life-begins-at-conception and deserves equal protection under the law crowd here. That's what I was talking about, anyway. Going back to Paul Ryan's stance. I'm actually painting with a tiny little brush when the overall picture is huge.

Those same people I'm talking about are also against in vitro fertilization for the same reason, those frozen embryos are all people equal under the law to you and me. I don't know if anyone is interested in that issue.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chemvictim wrote:I thought we were talking about the life-begins-at-conception and deserves equal protection under the law crowd here. That's what I was talking about, anyway. Going back to Paul Ryan's stance. I'm actually painting with a tiny little brush when the overall picture is huge.

Those same people I'm talking about are also against in vitro fertilization for the same reason, those frozen embryos are all people equal under the law to you and me. I don't know if anyone is interested in that issue.



Fair enough, I suppose, with respect to Paul Ryan (I will take your word for it as I don't feel like parsing his past statements regarding abortion). Though with a small caveat that not all those who are of the "life begins at conception and deserves equal protection under the laws" crowd also invariably value the life of the fetus over the life of the mother in all conceivable scenarios.

We've likely done enough circling around in this conversation for the time being in any case.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus

Thoughts on Hillary? Christie? Someone else?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on Hillary? Christie? Someone else?



Christie has done nothing I'm aware of to offend me. That's about as good as it gets!

Hillary, honestly I don't think I could stand another president who will be hated as much as Obama is. It's exhausting. That's a good thing about Christie, very few people seem to really hate the guy.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:Yes, I'm usually not up to the minute. I only watch the board occasionally.

And you have won today's "missed the point" award.



No, I saw the point on your head.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim

Does anybody have thoughts on the latest school shooting?

What's going on? Why is this happening?

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on Hillary? Christie? Someone else?


I think tea party Repubs screwed the pooch when they cast Marco Rubio aside. But there's still plenty of time for him to fall back into favor. They need minority votes to pull off the Presidency and Rubio is, or at least was, positioned to do that for them.

Although I lean to the left I am open to voting for a viable Republican Presidential candidate but the kind of "not-Romney" bat guano crazies they tried to parade around in '12 before finally succumbing to the inevitable Romney nomination doesn't give me cause for much hope. And that was without Sarah Palin!

For starters, anyone who claims that God told them to run for President is off my list. In '12 that included Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum (am I forgetting anyone?). Bill O'Reilly would have run but God told him to write a book instead.

God must have a great sense of humor, personally telling 3 Christians and a Catholic to run for President and then giving the nomination to a guy with magic Mormon underwear.

I don't see Christie becoming the next President or even the Republican candidate. Despite the concern about his big waistline, it will be his big mouth that ends up costing him the opportunity. It's ironic that the personality trait which makes him attractive to a large number of people, is the same attribute that will prevent him from going to the big show.

klezman


quality posts: 131 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:Edit: Silly me, I'd put MSNBC and CNN ahead of Fox in the obfuscating facts vs. opinion area.



With the caveat that it's a relatively small sample size of whatever I happen to see at the gym for 20 minutes at a time, Fox News is way more obfuscating than CNN. No data on MSNBC since I've never watched it. Again, ymmv, but based on what I've personally watched that is my take. Not that either of them are any good overall, of course.

2014: 57 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2011 Wellington Cab & Merlot, Roessler 2009 Bluejay, 2010 Bell Cabernet
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee

Not really political, but the entirety of the catholic church can tongue bathe my colon.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
bhodilee wrote:Not really political, but the entirety of the catholic church can tongue bathe my colon.



I can sympathize with that, but if Jawlz doesn't pop in and tell you to give them the benefit of the doubt and not demonize, I'm going to feel singled out.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:I can sympathize with that, but if Jawlz doesn't pop in and tell you to give them the benefit of the doubt and not demonize, I'm going to feel singled out.



In fairness that damn Pope just did something else that I COMPLETELY agree with. So maybe not the entirety. Let's back that down to the Omaha Archdiocese and specifically the lying bastard fake ass man of God who shall likely rot in hell and it will bother me not false shepherd of a Priest at the Church we sent my kid to for daycare. No, nothing illegal, just a lying, deceitful bastard to gleefully lied to all the parents of the daycare then decorateed us over in a severe way.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 234 Private Messages kylemittskus

I know some really good attorneys.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
bhodilee wrote:Not really political, but the entirety of the catholic church can tongue bathe my colon.



If only you were 25 or 30 years younger...

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

So the thing about sales management is that they are salesmen that move into management, not management that move into sales.

They have trouble seeing costs that aren't presented to them as a bill.

Case in point: We are having a lunch holiday party today. It will take 1-2 hours each way for people to get there / go home. So basically it eats an entire working day.

They do this because it's cheaper than having a dinner party.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 188 Private Messages MarkDaSpark

:Suspend Lurking: Again.

MD Man charged with 2nd degree murder asked "Why didn't you call police?"

Interesting article/opinion on an apparently stupid DA in MD and a tie-in to current school "Zero Tolerence for Violence" policies, with a call to Question Authority. Well, and to raise our kids to think on their own.


In essence, someone broke in, owner shot him, and Police wondered why he didn't call 911. (Like he had time!) DA wondered same and charged the owner with 2nd Degree Murder.

The author then wonders where this attitude of calling and waiting for authority to help us comes from, and ties it in to current school policies. Good examples are in the article/opinion.

Just about each one of them involves a child being bullied, school authorities told (or knowing) about the bullying, yet doing nothing to stop it. Yet when the child defends themselves, are punished under the "Zero Tolerance" policies.


The sad part is it seems that a reliance on authority is being taught to our kids, yet said authority is under no obligation to protect us. See Supreme Court Cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) where police were called for help and ignored the calls (over 14 hours), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) where despite calls to warn that an estranged husband (with a restraining order) was on his way (and eventually abducted and killed his kids), police were absolved of any responsibility for not enforcing the order.


So it appears, as the author puts it: "Basically it is the government saying, we don’t have to protect you, but if you protect yourself you are going to jail."


Now, where did I put those '60s Question Authority bumper stickers?


:resume lurking:


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
kylemittskus wrote:Thoughts on Hillary? Christie? Someone else?



I, for one, cannot stand Christie. The man has zero principles, and fits the definition of RINO to a T. I don't personally know him, so take all that with a grain of salt, but based on my observations of politicians that I have worked with, he falls clearly into the category of those who care more about winning and accumulating power than they do about doing long-term good for their communities.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote::Suspend Lurking: Again.

MD Man charged with 2nd degree murder asked "Why didn't you call police?"

Interesting article/opinion on an apparently stupid DA in MD and a tie-in to current school "Zero Tolerence for Violence" policies, with a call to Question Authority. Well, and to raise our kids to think on their own.


In essence, someone broke in, owner shot him, and Police wondered why he didn't call 911. (Like he had time!) DA wondered same and charged the owner with 2nd Degree Murder.

The author then wonders where this attitude of calling and waiting for authority to help us comes from, and ties it in to current school policies. Good examples are in the article/opinion.

Just about each one of them involves a child being bullied, school authorities told (or knowing) about the bullying, yet doing nothing to stop it. Yet when the child defends themselves, are punished under the "Zero Tolerance" policies.


The sad part is it seems that a reliance on authority is being taught to our kids, yet said authority is under no obligation to protect us. See Supreme Court Cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) where police were called for help and ignored the calls (over 14 hours), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) where despite calls to warn that an estranged husband (with a restraining order) was on his way (and eventually abducted and killed his kids), police were absolved of any responsibility for not enforcing the order.


So it appears, as the author puts it: "Basically it is the government saying, we don’t have to protect you, but if you protect yourself you are going to jail."


Now, where did I put those '60s Question Authority bumper stickers?


:resume lurking:



First off, I do agree with you in general. I'm not sure if the specific Pinkerton case is so simple. The article makes it sound like the guy was a burglar or something and Pinkerton simply defended himself. From what I have read they knew each other, the guy was having an affair with Mrs. Pinkerton, and they were fighting about it. That's not to say Pinkerton didn't have the right to defend himself, just that the article leaves out some details which might have been relevant to his being charged.

The school kids, yeah it sucks. I saw this video (I wish I could find it now but alas), a little kid was picking on a bigger kid and the big kid took it for awhile but finally he had enough. He got in trouble because his response to the bully was supposedly too harsh (the bully fell and hit his head or something).

chipgreen


quality posts: 207 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:
:resume lurking:


I'm not sure you can call it lurking when you've posted within the past 24 hrs.

As for the case in question there are almost no details provided so it's hard to say if deadly force was justified. Determining if it was justified or if the charges against the shooter are justified clearly are not on the author's agenda anyway. He advantageously uses the skeletal outline of a story to make the claim that a man was charged with murder not because he shot someone to death but because he didn't call 911.

After we are sufficiently outraged, he has us in the proper frame of mind for his somewhat related rant about authority. Not saying that I don't agree with a lot of what he wrote in this opinion piece but I'm not a big fan of the way he framed the article.

chemvictim


quality posts: 4 Private Messages chemvictim
jawlz wrote: The man has zero principles, and fits the definition of RINO to a T.



What's not to like?

edlada


quality posts: 6 Private Messages edlada
chemvictim wrote:What's not to like?



As a life long bleeding heart liberal Democrat I view the term "RINO" as a sort of compliment given the extremism of the Republican party nowadays.

My dogs like me, that is important.