Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

Crni Vuk said:
In the Meantime.

240726055_3163249043911208_8540228671045304963_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Trump killed off the Patriot act a while ago.
 
It was replaced with various other things like companies being legally allowed to spy and share data with no recourse. Patriot Act is gone but its purpose continues in other ways. Like Stingray being one of them. This will never go away. They'd fight that to the death I think.
 
So, how long do you give it for the US to reinvade? Or will they actually just fund the Taliban regime to fight ISIS now? From one bad thing to a worse one. It's almost as the US shouldn't have destabilized the region for so long. This is such a shitshow. A never ending hell.
 
Last edited:
What's pretty interesting is how the mainstream republican platform has changed their tune on that issue since Reagan. In the past it was most of the time a question of "It's the womans choice". Keep the state out of a womans womb, everyone has to make that decision for them self and so on. Changed completely over the years where they would probably bann almost every abortion. Hell some want to bann it completely.
 
I believe in small guv'ment but also I love the police and them to be able to act with no oversight or consequences, we should ban gay marriage, interracial marriage and medical treatments.
 
TheGM said:
Man, people get mighty upset when you put in a couple caveats into their baby killing.
Click to expand...
And people that care so much about the fetus somehow don't give a shit what happens once it's out of the womb. There is no "prof life" position here. The ideology behind it is about controlling women. Nothing more. Nothing else. Go and talk to those that really are trying to bann every abortion and why they want to bann it. And I am surprised that people which parrot this "BuT iTS a HumAn FeTUs!" don't realise what kind of platform they actually support here. The point is not to kill people. The point is to leave that choice to the person that is effected the most by it. The mother. And that is the only sensible decision in this when you look at it unemotionally and rationally. Because everything else ends up in the state and government impossing arbitrary lines at which point they consider something life and which they don't.

There is a medical evalulation at which point a fetus is considered viable outside the uterus so called Fetal Viability and that's the only guideline you really need to look at here. See Roe v. Wade. Anything outside of that is simply not really usefull in the discussion.

It is a very difficult topic after all. But what's undisputable at this point is the fact that harsher abortion laws lead actually to more abortions. As strange as that sounds. But we can see it from countries that have harsh abortion laws - even death penalities and countries which changed their laws.

What really prevents abortions is 1. Education and 2. Supporting mothers. Who would have thought? The easier it is for a mother to raise their child the more likely are they going to keep it. The more pressure particularlly economically speaking there is, the higher abbortion rates are. This is really one topic I will never understand conservative positions. They are fight tooth and nail for a fetus. But literaly the moment it's born. They don't give a fuck. Now it's the mothers responsibility! Sorry kid. Maybe better luck next time.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
And people that care so much about the fetus somehow don't give a shit what happens once it's out of the womb. There is no "prof life" position here. The ideology behind it is about controlling women. Nothing more. Nothing else. Go and talk to those that really are trying to bann every abortion and why they want to bann it. And I am surprised that people which parrot this "BuT iTS a HumAn FeTUs!" don't realise what kind of platform they actually support here. The point is not to kill people. The point is to leave that choice to the person that is effected the most by it. The mother. And that is the only sensible decision in this when you look at it unemotionally and rationally. Because everything else ends up in the state and government impossing arbitrary lines at which point they consider something life and which they don't.

There is a medical evalulation at which point a fetus is considered viable outside the uterus so called Fetal Viability and that's the only guideline you really need to look at here. See Roe v. Wade. Anything outside of that is simply not really usefull in the discussion.

It is a very difficult topic after all. But what's undisputable at this point is the fact that harsher abortion laws lead actually to more abortions. As strange as that sounds. But we can see it from countries that have harsh abortion laws - even death penalities and countries which changed their laws.

What really prevents abortions is 1. Education and 2. Supporting mothers. Who would have thought? The easier it is for a mother to raise their child the more likely are they going to keep it. The more pressure particularlly economically speaking there is, the higher abbortion rates are. This is really one topic I will never understand conservative positions. They are fight tooth and nail for a fetus. But literaly the moment it's born. They don't give a fuck. Now it's the mothers responsibility! Sorry kid. Maybe better luck next time.
Click to expand...
Funny how most woman are pro-life in the states. Abortion is as much about a woman's healthcare as a full frontal lobotomy is mental exercise. Also, most conservatives tend to adopt children but you wouldn't know since you are a ideologue that hates Christians and loves the smell of your own farts.
 
RangerBoo said:
The only way for Afghanistan to be conquered is if you do a full LARP of Caesar from New Vegas. Wash away the tribal identities and force them to integrate to one great tribe. I honestly don't think you can do it any other way. I am against this as I don't believe you should force people against their will to change.
Click to expand...

A place like Afghanistan, you can shoot every single person in the face untill there are no persons left, and everyone who moves into the vacancy will immediately form mountain tribes - because the country has no comparable infrastructure. They aren't being backwards semi-independent tribes in the mountains just to be a thorn in everyone's side - but because the environment pushes people into that direction.
Afghanistan - when compared to most countries on earth, rank as one of the very least developed. By developed is meant, among many things - *hard* infrastructure, roads, rail, communications. And for a country that has been more or less non stop bombed since the 1970s, there hasn't been a lot of oportunity to - you know - pave new motorways.

Ironically, letting China sweep in and piss investment cash all over the country might actually make some of the difference - the Chinese *love* building roads and motorways in backwards countries, precisely because that shit buys them a LOT of loyalty, not to mention gets their industries kickstarted, as well as unites remote places with urban centers.
 
zegh8578 said:
A place like Afghanistan, you can shoot every single person in the face untill there are no persons left, and everyone who moves into the vacancy will immediately form mountain tribes - because the country has no comparable infrastructure. They aren't being backwards semi-independent tribes in the mountains just to be a thorn in everyone's side - but because the environment pushes people into that direction.
Afghanistan - when compared to most countries on earth, rank as one of the very least developed. By developed is meant, among many things - *hard* infrastructure, roads, rail, communications. And for a country that has been more or less non stop bombed since the 1970s, there hasn't been a lot of oportunity to - you know - pave new motorways.

Ironically, letting China sweep in and piss investment cash all over the country might actually make some of the difference - the Chinese *love* building roads and motorways in backwards countries, precisely because that shit buys them a LOT of loyalty, not to mention gets their industries kickstarted, as well as unites remote places with urban centers.
Click to expand...
With China though there is one thing that may hold them back with investing and having a full on relationship with Afghanistan and that is the Uyghurs. The Taliban hate China for what they are doing to them. You can see the rage they have for them on their Twitter approved accounts. However, the Taliban may just eat crow with that and ignore it in order to have a strong ally that will not only invest with them but also protect them from US interference.
 
RangerBoo said:
Funny how most woman are pro-life in the states.
Click to expand...
Depends on what age group we're talking about. In general, the older the women in question are the more likely are they to be "pro-life". - which is also interesting because older women usually don't get children anymore.

"Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life," 2018-2021 Demographic Tables (gallup.com)

But what ever if a majority of women is pro-life or pro-choice is besidese the point as my main argument was to leave the decision to the women themself. So if a majority of women would be pro-life does that mean they now have to tell those that are pro-choice what to do and think in this case? Particularly as this also involves law making and policies so we really are not just talking hypothetically here. So because some women chose for them self to never have an abortion now every women should never have that choice? Because this is what it boils down to. And that is a very irrational stance. Because it means the state and government will step in and dictate what you do with your body based on the opinion of some people that see life as sacret at the moment of conception - but don't care what ever if a born child is well feed, clothed or educated go figure.

No one here is asking for a law to force women to have abbortions. The whole point is not to have a law that's forcing women to carry out the unborn fetus. That's all it really is about.

*Edit

Also did you know that in ancient timese it was frowned uppon to ejaculate for a male? For the same idea. Could have been children! I think the old testament mentions it somewhere. But I don't remember it.

RangerBoo said:
Also, most conservatives tend to adopt children
Click to expand...
They do? Do you have a source for that? Not that it matters to the argument at hand but it would be an interesting read I guess. Just as a little fact here. Some conservatives seem not to care much about abortion, unless it involves an unwanted child.

"Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy."

Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy - ABC News (go.com)

but you wouldn't know since you are a ideologue that hates Christians Leftist. - Funny how that goes.

RangerBoo said:
Abortion is as much about a woman's healthcare as a full frontal lobotomy is mental exercise.
Click to expand...
Not long ago in the Untied States I quote : "insurance companies could turn you down if you applied for coverage while you were pregnant. At that time, many health plans considered pregnancy a pre-existing condition". Thankfully at least that bullshit was changed. But this is the kind of child-friendly culture we're talking about. You think this is not about health related issue? Child Birth is still a relatively risky affair. Not to mention that it involves well a pregnancy. All I am saying that what ever if a mother wants to actually carry out the child or not is a decision that should be left to the person that actually has to carry it out. It's not a perfect solution because it somewehat ignores the position of the father. But I see no viable alternative here unless you want to impose some very draconic measures which will only lead to more "illegal" abbortions. I quote :

"Anti-abortion advocates working to criminalize abortion in the United States and abroad will always be stymied by a crucial fact: People everywhere want, need and find ways to get abortions.

I observed this firsthand while working as a public health adviser in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and now new research from the Guttmacher Institute demonstrates just how misguided and dangerous it is to try to limit abortion access. The data shows that abortion rates are roughly the same in countries where abortion is broadly legal and in countries where it isn't. And abortion rates are actually four times higher in low-income countries where abortion is prohibited than in high-income countries where it is broadly legal."

Zara Ahmed: Abortion rates don't drop when the procedure is outlawed. But it does make it more dangerous. (nbcnews.com)

Again. If you're seriously interested in having as few abbortions as possible then you have really only two options here.

1. Better eduction. The more eudcated women are the less likely are they to have abbortions. Improve the working and living conditions for women in general.

2. Better support for mothers. The easier it is to actually have and raise a child without worrying about your economic situation the more likely will mothers keep their children.

zegh8578 said:
A place like Afghanistan, you can shoot every single person in the face untill there are no persons left, and everyone who moves into the vacancy will immediately form mountain tribes - because the country has no comparable infrastructure. They aren't being backwards semi-independent tribes in the mountains just to be a thorn in everyone's side - but because the environment pushes people into that direction.
Afghanistan - when compared to most countries on earth, rank as one of the very least developed. By developed is meant, among many things - *hard* infrastructure, roads, rail, communications. And for a country that has been more or less non stop bombed since the 1970s, there hasn't been a lot of oportunity to - you know - pave new motorways.
Click to expand...
Not only that. I am watching this and it's incredible how different Afghanistan is culturally on what we usually see as ethnicities and nationalities. I really didn't knew how tribal the Afghan region actually is.



For example I thought Afghanistan was much closer to the Balkan - A region I somewhat know due to my family. But apparantly not even that described the real situations. Damn.
 
Last edited:
RangerBoo said:
With China though there is one thing that may hold them back with investing and having a full on relationship with Afghanistan and that is the Uyghurs. The Taliban hate China for what they are doing to them. You can see the rage they have for them on their Twitter approved accounts. However, the Taliban may just eat crow with that and ignore it in order to have a strong ally that will not only invest with them but also protect them from US interference.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty much. Taliban aren't going to give two shits about "soft bleeding heart" issues such as ethnic cleansing - a direct partnership with China is going to be a god-send, even if it means letting them pick and choose from all those untapped natural resources - resources the Taliban have NO practical use for, other than to sell for money (if only someone could extract it, refine it, and move it!)

Crni - yeah, Afghanistan is in many ways a "hole" in the geopolitical map, similar to Somalia - in that there isn't really a nation there. The tribes are functionally independent, same as the clan-structures in Somalia. Humans tend to make due without a country, without a government - but they make due precisely by reverting to the smallest controllable societal unit - usually tribes or clans led by elders or warlords or chiefs or whatevs.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Depends on what age group we're talking about. In general, the older the women in question are the more likely are they to be "pro-life". - which is also interesting because older women usually don't get children anymore.

"Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life," 2018-2021 Demographic Tables (gallup.com)

But what ever if a majority of women is pro-life or pro-choice is besidese the point as my main argument was to leave the decision to the women themself. So if a majority of women would be pro-life does that mean they now have to tell those that are pro-choice what to do and think in this case? Particularly as this also involves law making and policies so we really are not just talking hypothetically here. So because some women chose for them self to never have an abortion now every women should never have that choice? Because this is what it boils down to. And that is a very irrational stance. Because it means the state and government will step in and dictate what you do with your body based on the opinion of some people that see life as sacret at the moment of conception - but don't care what ever if a born child is well feed, clothed or educated go figure.

No one here is asking for a law to force women to have abbortions. The whole point is not to have a law that's forcing women to carry out the unborn fetus. That's all it really is about.

*Edit

Also did you know that in ancient timese it was frowned uppon to ejaculate for a male? For the same idea. Could have been children! I think the old testament mentions it somewhere. But I don't remember it.


They do? Do you have a source for that? Not that it matters to the argument at hand but it would be an interesting read I guess. Just as a little fact here. Some conservatives seem not to care much about abortion, unless it involves an unwanted child.

"Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy has resigned after a report surfaced earlier this week that he had asked an extramarital lover to end her pregnancy."

Anti-abortion Rep. Tim Murphy resigns after report he asked lover to end pregnancy - ABC News (go.com)

but you wouldn't know since you are a ideologue that hates Christians Leftist. - Funny how that goes.


Not long ago in the Untied States I quote : "insurance companies could turn you down if you applied for coverage while you were pregnant. At that time, many health plans considered pregnancy a pre-existing condition". Thankfully at least that bullshit was changed. But this is the kind of child-friendly culture we're talking about. You think this is not about health related issue? Child Birth is still a relatively risky affair. Not to mention that it involves well a pregnancy. All I am saying that what ever if a mother wants to actually carry out the child or not is a decision that should be left to the person that actually has to carry it out. It's not a perfect solution because it somewehat ignores the position of the father. But I see no viable alternative here unless you want to impose some very draconic measures which will only lead to more "illegal" abbortions. I quote :

"Anti-abortion advocates working to criminalize abortion in the United States and abroad will always be stymied by a crucial fact: People everywhere want, need and find ways to get abortions.

I observed this firsthand while working as a public health adviser in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and now new research from the Guttmacher Institute demonstrates just how misguided and dangerous it is to try to limit abortion access. The data shows that abortion rates are roughly the same in countries where abortion is broadly legal and in countries where it isn't. And abortion rates are actually four times higher in low-income countries where abortion is prohibited than in high-income countries where it is broadly legal."

Zara Ahmed: Abortion rates don't drop when the procedure is outlawed. But it does make it more dangerous. (nbcnews.com)

Again. If you're seriously interested in having as few abbortions as possible then you have really only two options here.

1. Better eduction. The more eudcated women are the less likely are they to have abbortions. Improve the working and living conditions for women in general.

2. Better support for mothers. The easier it is to actually have and raise a child without worrying about your economic situation the more likely will mothers keep their children.


Not only that. I am watching this and it's incredible how different Afghanistan is culturally on what we usually see as ethnicities and nationalities. I really didn't knew how tribal the Afghan region actually is.



For example I thought Afghanistan was much closer to the Balkan - A region I somewhat know due to my family. But apparantly not even that described the real situations. Damn.
Click to expand...

Jesus, if you want to abort your child than just become a console gamer. The child will self-abort it self out of shame.
 
zegh8578 said:
Yep, pretty much. Taliban aren't going to give two shits about "soft bleeding heart" issues such as ethnic cleansing - a direct partnership with China is going to be a god-send, even if it means letting them pick and choose from all those untapped natural resources - resources the Taliban have NO practical use for, other than to sell for money (if only someone could extract it, refine it, and move it!)
Click to expand...
I guess this will depend on how well the tribes work with each other in the future. If they go back to their "old" ways like when the Soviets left than there will be a lot of fighting between the groups themself and every super-silk-road-what-ever-project the chinese come up with goes down the toilet in Afghanistan. There is a reason no one invests in Somalia. As you say. It's simply too unstable. Today the clan is your friend. Tomorrow they kill your workers because someones goat farted. I mean we're already seeing it now. ISIS and Taliban fighting each other.

To say this though as much as the Taliban and some crazy islamistic tribes are shitheads one has to admire that they stood there for like ever. They are very autonomous. They do not really rely much on international relationships and all that and many of them don't even want it if they don't have to like when the Soviets invaded. I think someone was quoted saying, we're poor but we're free. Like I said. That's an interesting thought. As crazy as they are. And it shows that you can't beat such people.
 
I think abortion should remain legal on the grounds that less people will die from the old backalley abortions. It's GONNA happen so best to just make it safer. The moral judgement should be left to the individual mother, not the government. It's not great, but I prefer it to the alternative, personally.

Also, you could totally crush the Taliban, but the methods to do so are prevented by international law.

Unironic communist screwhead gets fired
Pro-Antifa California teacher to be fired by school district after leaked video emerges (msn.com)
 
Last edited:
RangerBoo said:
"I only have 180 days to radicalize these children into revolutionaries." Gee, I wonder why the parents would be pissed about that. :whatever:
Click to expand...

It's because they are:

1 Fascist(even though we don't know what this means, we just know it's bad)
2 White(even if they aren't white)
3 Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bad
4 Straight probably
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top