1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Chamber of Commerce sees it, why doesn't anyone else?

Discussion in '2016 Election' started by Biker, Oct 24, 2015.

  1. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Chamber of Commerce laments 'hole in the middle' of US politics

    The way things are going, though, I fear it's too late. The more each side polarizes, it becomes increasingly difficult to hear the moderate voices of reason.
  2. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I'm sorry to see your post got no replies. I too have contemplated the widening "no man's land" between liberals and conservatives, between Democrats and Republicans, although the names today no longer represent party politics or political positions.

    For example, I am a fiscal conservative and a philosophical liberal. I want the country run on a sound fiscal basis, something that has not been done for at least a decade. I want business to thrive because only business produces jobs. When government tries to produce jobs all they result in is government dependency.

    Yet I am a social or philosophical liberal. I see no reason why government should be involved in marriage. If gays want to marry, why should I care? They fuck anyway. What is this, the government in the business of issuing fucking licenses? Marriage should be solely the business (sic) of the church, and churches should be outside the provenance of the government. If you gay people want to get married in the First Church of the Holy Faggot then why not? Why should I care and why should the government care? Men have been butt-holing men since Roman times and probably before then. Like, you need government permission?

    This whole thing about selling near-term baby organs has me greatly disturbed, not on religious grounds but on moral grounds. Let babies grow to near term and then harvest body parts??? We need a clear understanding that pregnancy termination is legal, but it should be limited. I think the first trimester is plenty of time for a woman to decide to carry the pregnancy to birth or not, or at least 39/2 = 19.5 weeks. After that I am completely comfortable if the woman develops a medical condition that threatens her life and requires termination of pregnancy, but if there is no overriding medical reason I think abortion should be outlawed by at least the 20th week. If you can't make up your mind in that amount of time then give it birth and let it be adopted.

    And while I'm on my soap box, I fail to see any argument that justified gay marriage that does not equally apply to plural marriage. As far as I'm concerned plural marriage should be allowed by the same statutes that allow gay marriage.

    Well I'm tired of standing behind my soap box. Bye!


    And by the way, I'll be happy if our economy doesn't go to hell. I could care less who fucks who. TMI. Just run the government in a fiscally conservative manner and don't let the religious rule the laws and I'll be happy.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2015
    rockotman likes this.
  3. rockotman

    rockotman Blown on the steel breeze

    If your soap box breaks, I will buy you another one. Well said, sir. Well said.
  4. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Thanks Rokot. BTW I corrected a typo in my previous post. I think 20 weeks is a reasonable time for a woman to decide if she wants to carry to term. (Not 40.) Typical pregnancy is 39 weeks and half way seems a reasonable cut-off to me. That's 4-1/2 months!!!

    By the way, I'm a feminist on this issue. While I think the pregnant woman should discuss this with the to-be father, I see this is as entirely the woman's decision if she should want to terminate or carry to term.

    If the woman wants to carry to term and the man wants an abortion, then he should have thought about birth control before coitus. Once the woman is pregnant it's out of his hands, and the decision should be hers alone.

Share This Page