Official Off Topic Thread

With respect to states' rights, I believe that state government reflects the desires of their populations better than federal government. Just look at red states and blue states.

With respect to abortion, I've never had a kid, but I couldn't see myself having an abortion. However, I think getting rid of it entirely would only serve to promote coathanger abortions in unsafe environments. I definitely agree with promoting contraception and teaching more than abstinence.

What confuses me the most is the use of the word "Christian." Hearing something like "it's the Christian thing to do" means that something is morally correct, I get that. Is this what's implied when people say this country was founded on Christian principles? Obviously not, because Bible thumpers who say God hates fags aren't doing a good job of upholding the tolerant practices Jesus displayed in the New Testament. This country was founded during the Enlightenment, a period where there was an emphasis on humanism, not Christianity. Putting anyone in the White House who wouldn't believe this would turn this country into a church state.
 
i hate gouvernment in general, + I live in canada, just give me someone who will put the french separatists at bay, and keep my iglo cold and i'm happy :D

But honestly, why on earth would such a large mass of STUPID french people, wanna seperate from Canada, and become their own country? We just slid through the last referendum :( I think if we ever do seperate I'm going to refuge to either Ontario, or the United States of America Y'all!
 
i hate gouvernment in general, + I live in canada, just give me someone who will put the french separatists at bay, and keep my iglo cold and i'm happy :D

But honestly, why on earth would such a large mass of STUPID french people, wanna seperate from Canada, and become their own country? We just slid through the last referendum :( I think if we ever do seperate I'm going to refuge to either Ontario, or the United States of America Y'all!

Is that whole separatist thing just a vocal minority, or is it actually gaining support? :erk:
 
On the abortion issue...

It should be a federal law that abortions should remain 100% legal. The notion christians like to go on that makes it wrong is the premise that humans have souls, but since this is an entirely faith based assumption, not everyone believes there is such a thing as a soul. Furthermore, a fetus doesn't develop consciousness immediately. If something is not aware of itself, its not going to make one difference to it if its alive or dead, since it doesn't even know its alive to begin with. We can of course, debate up to what point its ok to have an abortion... and I think its already illegal to have one past a certain point.

Pro choice means you have a choice. I am perfectly fine with someone who's beliefs do not think its right to have an abortion. You don't have to... but maybe the woman who was raped thinks differently about that.
 
I don't understand why, within the first few weeks/month of being pregnant, it's such a big issue. The clusters of cells have not yet formed into a person. If you want to have an abortion, at least do it early. Perhaps better birth control could end this discussion sometime down the road.
 
I don't look at abortion as the killing of a soul. But, it is well documented that the fetal heartbeat starts a scant 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period. Given the 28-day cycle to menstrual activities, in most situations women have not even thought about being late with their period before the fetal heartbeat starts. Regardless of fetal conscientiousness, I think stopping a heartbeat would be the bad part of the equation.

But, "murder" is not something that factors into my decision. I strongly feel people need to be responsible for making decisions in their lives and accountable for the outcomes of those decisions. Abortion, to me, is a shirking of accountability. Of course, this argument doesn't touch on the topic touched on by Matt and Zach: rape. That is truly the only instance for which I can see abortion being legitimate.
 
On Abortion: I'm Pro-Situation. There's no blanketing right answer in my opinion. Life should be protected in every circumstance, but sometimes that means making a difficult choice. Evaluate on a case by case basis, I don't think the government should even get involved in the issue at all.
 
and its a big problem, not just vocal minority! QUEBEC is full of francophones, and full of anglophones, the french think the english shouldn't be here, and that if we must stay, and work for them, its LAW to be able to speak their language, on the other palm, they don't have to learn one word in french! The level of french I had shuved down my throat begain in kindergarden, 5 - 6 year olds! The francophones begin learning english as a second language in secondary 1, ages 13-15! So it makes you wonder why do many of them are seperatist and anti-anglophone!
 
That's why I'm glad Mitt Romney got dumped in our elections, he's a strong anti-foreigner. I don't think that kind of policy encourages peaceful cooperation. Great Wall of Mexico? Yeah, they'll just tunnel under it. Wasting more tax dollars. And pissing off the Mexican government. Not to mention how unsightly it'd be. I also am pro-language. In southwestern and far southern states, I support the interstate and other public systems displaying all text in both Spanish and English, just like in north eastern states all text is and should stay in both French and English. We should be nice to our neighbors.
 
I'm not opposed to languages being taught, and I'm not even opposed to certain things (like what you mentioned, ken)being printed in multiple languages, but I do fully support the idea that everyone who lives here be required to speak English to a functional level (including the Americans who seem to have hard enough of a time as it is). I wouldn't move to Mexico and expect to get a job not knowing how to communicate with clients or my fellow employees and the same should not be allowed here. When I have a hard time doing the things that I need to do (resolve issues with my student loans, try to get an insurance issue taken care of, tell the cab driver where to turn so I don't get charged an extra 10 bucks because the guy doesn't know where he's going and can't understand the phrase "turn left at the next light") because some other asshole hasn't bothered to learn the language of the country he lives in, that is unacceptable.
 
Oh absolutely agreed. In some areas of the country though, like extreme southern california and texas, you can be a full participant in society with just spanish. I have no problem with that. If said person then moves to Illinois, then sure. Now you have to learn english. Communication is the focal point.

By the way, to add perspective to this discussion (if it continues), I learned Spanish as a first language, and English starting when I was about 4.
 
I have split views on that. On one hand those places are already to the point (not saying that as a positive or a negative) where Spanish is dominant enough that people can get by with very little English and it would be stupid to expect entire counties to do a 180, but on the other hand I still feel they are limited (sometimes at the expense of people other than themselves) in their communication skills and should still be able to function at least at the most basic level of English. For the most part though, I definitely agree with you. On a side note (sort of) I remember I few years back when some guy in Maryland tried to sue six flags because he climbed over the fence at the park to get his hat that fell off when he was on the ride. I can't remember the details, but he was injured in one way or another by the rollercoaster or some mechanism on it. He based his case around the fact that the 10-foot fence with barbwire on the top didn't have a second set of warning signs written in Spanish. This was obviously more of stupidity issue than a language barrier issue, but it was hilarious. No point to that story I suppose...

On another topic...my new overdrive pedal (bb preamp) showed up today. It's quite fantastic so far, I can't wait to really open up my amp and see how this thing sounds at gigging/recording levels.
 
My new laptop arrived today and I'm on here to kill time while shit installs. :lol:

My problem with Huckabee is that, unlike before when I thought he was an OK guy, he's stepped up the religion platform. He wants to put the constitution "back in line with God's ways" or something to that effect. Did he not get the memo that it never was? That we are prescribed to have a separation of church and state? That concerns me. It's supposed to be a tolerant, neutral government.

McCain's a war vet and always will be. It's his thing. He doesn't know much else, and although he's sympathetic to the war, he's not too bad otherwise. I still wouldn't vote for him but he's not ass-smelling horrible.

Hillary... now there's ass-smelling horrible. "35 years of experience" is her whole platform. So, in the past 35 years, what wonderful change is it that she has actively contributed to, since it is that recent decade, while she was in office, that we are now trying to SEVER ourselves from? What has she done, that she is so experienced, besides bullshit, lie, pretend to cry on national tv for ratings, and go on a femi-nazi crusade? She's got A+ experience in being a politician. But that's not what we need. Hillary is more of the same old bureaucracy and red tape. Smoke and mirrors. It's no surprise that in every primary she has one so far (yes, every one, look into it) the neighborhood breakdown of where she is winning the majority of her votes comes from: 1. the very wealthy, 2. the very poor but uneducated caucasian working class. So who's voting for her? White trash, as the epithet is known, and the snoody rich who don't REALLY want change. They want the 'safe' democrat. More of the same.

Obama doesn't have experience. He's been senator for 6 years now, 2 of which most people count, and he's running for president. Why not? Why not an average man to represent us, the average public? Someone who isn't interested in the political jargon and red tape? I think this is EXACTLY what we need. He may be forceful and at times very adamant about his policies, a few of which I disagree with, but as a whole he is a unifier and a real inciter of political engagement for the public. People who never vote turned out to vote, just cause of him. Getting the people back involved will help set the government's honesty problems straight. Oh, and on the night he lost NH to Hillary, while she was making her victoy speech, he was on the phone with the leaders of Kenya aiding them with efforts to stop the violence. Who's ready to be president of these two? No experience. :lol:

Romney is a hardline conservative. He's also out.

Ron Paul is pretty good, but he doesn't have the media presence to stand a chance. He's a non contender at this point, and he also seems too weak to really be an icon of the american nation. Yes, sadly, that does matter.
 
yeah, I actually really liked the guy the first couple times I heard him speak, but then he started up with all the religious nonsense and I quickly backed away. The best Chuck Norris 'facts' in the world couldn't make up for that:erk: