Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Lectryk said:

I don't think even that contortion would work.  On it's face, it comes down to an argument between the rights of the prospective mother, and the right of the unborn to be be born.  We know which way that the current bench would rule, with that logic.

 

Any prospective case would face the hurdle of proving that bearing to term is involuntary servitude/slavery when there is an option to adopt out the baby.  If there was case law/laws in general requiring 'proper pre-natal care' (even a definition of that) at the federal level let alone the state level, there would be a level of invasiveness and control of the individual's actions that could be read as servitude/slavery, but there isn't precedent for that (that I know of, anyway).

 

 

 

Adopting out the baby only saves a person from the work of raising the child.  Never mind all work of carrying a fetus for nine months, the act of childbirth is itself extremely difficult.  They don't call it labor for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's episode of The Daily (NYT podcast/radio program) dealt with the Memphis SCORPION Unit. As others have noted, there were plenty of warning signs that it was running out of control. Reporter also notes that it fits a well-established pattern: City experiences a spike in crime; police special unit formed to "get tough" on crime; special unit itself starts committing crimes and causes a scandal. I would ask rhetorically, "Won't people ever learn?" ... except I know that people never learn.

The Police Unit That Was Supposed to Keep Memphis Safe - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ranxerox said:

 

Adopting out the baby only saves a person from the work of raising the child.  Never mind all work of carrying a fetus for nine months, the act of childbirth is itself extremely difficult.  They don't call it labor for nothing.

 

There are also significant risks.  

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/staying-healthy-during-pregnancy/4-common-pregnancy-complications#:~:text=Most pregnancies progress without incident,the mother or the baby.

 

Quote

Most pregnancies progress without incident. But approximately 8 percent of all pregnancies involve complications that, if left untreated, may harm the mother or the baby. While some complications relate to health problems that existed before pregnancy, others occur unexpectedly and are unavoidable.

 

And when there are no exceptions based on the health of the mother...if those pre-existing conditions DO exist, it's likely rather higher than that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2023 at 6:09 PM, Cygnia said:

 

 

It was well within the upper limits of what is internationally recognized as a country's airspace...and well below what anyone has ever considered to be outer space.

 

You're not allowed to violate other country's airspace without express permission (barring a declared emergency of a manned craft). The choice on whether to shoot down the offending craft or not is at the discretion of the country whose airspace is being violated. From the Chicago Convention of 1944 that forms the treaty forming the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It's Article 1 states “The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.” Both China and the US, along with almost all other nations, are part of that treaty.

 

The balloon was bopping along between 60,000 to 90,000 feet, which is well inside the ICAO agreement.

 

To be an illegal target, the balloon would have had to be in outer space and be qualified for coverage under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), which allows for free passage there for any country.

 

Outer space is generally considered to start at 100 kilometers, which is 328,000 feet.

 

No matter how generous anyone would want to be to the Chinese side in the matter, the balloon wasn't traveling anywhere close to outer space.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it. Okay speech, I thought.

 

Before I turned off the post-speech commentary and analysis, I heard one pundit note that Biden mostly talked about small, practical, "kitchen table" issues rather than big "culture war" issues. But isn't that the real cultural divide in politrics? Is government about administration to achieve practical goals, or is it an ideological struggle to enforce granscendent visions of culture?

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the pundits I've heard/read have made a big deal about Biden having provoked the GOP in the House to openly say that their going after Social Security and Medicare is a lie, which of course their past actions have shown it isn't. The pundits claim that will be a bar to them actually trying to do it.

 

Personally I'm very skeptical of that. Republican politicians in recent years have routinely and blatantly said one thing publicly, then done the opposite, and when called on their hypocrisy have brazened their way over it, and their voters have swallowed that. For the situation to have any tactical value, the Biden administration will have to repeatedly hammer it home with advertising to the public, something they've been very reluctant to do until now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, she brought the heat. I think I like this one.

 

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) scorches Washington in brutal roast: 'I love exercising 1st Amendment rights'

 

Some of her best lines, largely at the expense of her fellow Republicans:

  • “I know everyone thinks Republicans aren’t funny. But if you get a bunch of us together, we can be a real riot.”
  • Re: George Santos: “Really, who lies about playing college volleyball? Who does that? If you’re gonna lie, at least make it about something big, like you actually won the 2020 presidential election.”
  • “There’s one reason I was chosen to be the Republican speaker tonight, and it's because Kevin McCarthy couldn't get the votes ... I haven't seen someone assume that many positions to appease crazy Republicans since Stormy Daniels”.
  • “[W]e all knew that Matt Gaetz would never let the vote get to 18”.
  • “C'mon, George, you give Republicans a bad name. And that's Lauren Boebert's job.” [beat] “Just kidding, Lauren, don’t shoot.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shooter at the El Paso Wal-Mart pled guilty today.  Wednesday

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/08/1155614286/el-paso-walmart-shooting-guilty-plea-federal-hate-crime-weapons-charges

 

Prosecutors took the death penalty off the table, so he agreed to change his plea.  Mind...he's going to be serving 90 consecutive life sentences, so one can forget about even being considered for parole any time this millenium.  He may be brought up on state charges, if Texas chooses to do so, and the death penalty is still possible for those.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...