General Music Chat

here's the disconnect (one of 'em) for me:

many people who are very strongly against abortion and believe it to be murder will still concede that in cases of incest, or rape.....they can abide w abortion.

so....is it "murder" in other cases......but NOT in those?????

and that's just one more example of the hypocrisy of those who would impose their beliefs on others.

my take on abortion is much like my take on religion...if you don't don't believe in abortion that's absolutely fine and dandy. that's your call..... don't get one. but don't impose YOUR beliefs on me.

gee glen .....for someone who bridles and bristles at the faintest whiff of gov't overstepping their ground and telling us what we can and can't can't do...if you're not being downright hypocritical, at the very least it sure seems IRONIC that you would come down on the side of more gov't control telling citizens what they can and can't do!

jus' sayin is all.

The right is only for intrusive laws ("big government") when it favors their social beliefs.

nuthin' hypocritical about THAT, is there????

There are situations where both abortion and gun ownership are warranted, and (far) more often there are situations where they aren't. Neither should be banned, but both should be controlled. How and who are the questions here.

In the end, NOBODY will ever be happy no matter how you handle each.

Glenny, you should know better to troll such a clusterfuck topic here. There's no good answer, and everyone is a hypocrite. Everyone.

Sorry Kramer, it was getting pretty boring up here... You know... comparing blue skies and toilet tissue.

here's the disconnect (one of 'em) for me:

many people who are very strongly against abortion and believe it to be murder will still concede that in cases of incest, or rape.....they can abide w abortion.

so....is it "murder" in other cases......but NOT in those?????

and that's just one more example of the hypocrisy of those who would impose their beliefs on others.

my take on abortion is much like my take on religion...if you don't don't believe in abortion that's absolutely fine and dandy. that's your call..... don't get one. but don't impose YOUR beliefs on me.

gee glen .....for someone who bridles and bristles at the faintest whiff of gov't overstepping their ground and telling us what we can and can't can't do...if you're not being downright hypocritical, at the very least it sure seems IRONIC that you would come down on the side of more gov't control telling citizens what they can and can't do!

jus' sayin is all.

Actually Mark. Everything you wrote makes perfect sense except for the part of being downright hypocritical.

I don't need a government to tell me how large of a soft drink I can buy.
I don't need a government telling me how they are protecting me... They can't unless I use my own personal responsibility.

I don't think I did any thing more than point out the hypocrisy that our government has EXEMPTED themselves from the national health care bill... That Diane Feinstein has a full carry conceal permit.... BUT SHE DOESN'T want any one else to have a gun... That mayor bloomberg doesn't want any guns in NYC... Except for the ones carried by his body guards...

You are right in that I should not impose my beliefs on another person... I don't think I imposed any, other than pointing out the extreme hypocrisy that one side is imposing.

As far as abortion, My views are really messed up. If there was personal responsibility... IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE

As far as freedom... It all starts with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If some one doesn't understand that... There are many that will love to CONTROL YOUR FREEDOM.

Thanks Mark... You are actually a good guy!

I'm trying to understand this - is there actually one person left in the whole country, so pathetically ill informed, that they haven't already made up their minds on these issues?

I kinda doubt it. Hence my lack of eagerness to debate it.

We always end up saying unkind things to each other and getting mad. And nothing changes.

Talbot

And you are a major advocate of lunacy.

Perfect, typical, LIBERAL attack. I love it.

The perfect liberal gun

I like IT!

This could all be solved if folks would just teach their kids to respect others property and life. Guns are tools for the angry, the bitter, or the sportsman (Who might be angry and bitter).

Tools are manufactured based on demand. Angry, bitter people demand guns. They are angry and bitter because the law says they can live freely except for the list of rules that impose or taint the spirit of the freedom: (see 1 to 10,000 + laws amended despite the constitution)

The reason lawmakers want gun control is because they absolutely understand that too many Americans are angry and bitter and want them dead...
That's why they push gun control.

They dont give a FK about the kids...

This could all be solved if folks would just teach their kids to respect others property and life. Guns are tools for the angry, the bitter, or the sportsman (Who might be angry and bitter).

Tools are manufactured based on demand. Angry, bitter people demand guns. They are angry and bitter because the law says they can live freely except for the list of rules that impose or taint the spirit of the freedom: (see 1 to 10,000 + laws amended despite the constitution)

The reason lawmakers want gun control is because they absolutely understand that too many Americans are angry and bitter and want them dead...
That's why they push gun control.

They dont give a FK about the kids...

Dawg, on one hand you talk about personal responsibility... Then you launch into an attack about guns being the tools of the angry,bitter, people demanding guns.

Actually your statement should read... All the angry, bitter , elected government representatives that realize their chances of ruling without ANY encumbrance... Will never happen unless they are able to challenge the TRUE authority and power that is derived ONLY from the will of the people, willing to accept a REASONABLE covenant of governance, in order to avoid chaos and anarchy.

You are right... They don't give a FK about the kids... Neither did hitler, stallin, mao, pol pot, castro, guerrera, SHOULD I GO ON?

This could all be solved if folks would just teach their kids to respect others property and life. Guns are tools for the angry, the bitter, or the sportsman (Who might be angry and bitter).

Tools are manufactured based on demand. Angry, bitter people demand guns. They are angry and bitter because the law says they can live freely except for the list of rules that impose or taint the spirit of the freedom: (see 1 to 10,000 + laws amended despite the constitution)

The reason lawmakers want gun control is because they absolutely understand that too many Americans are angry and bitter and want them dead...
That's why they push gun control.

They dont give a FK about the kids...

Dawg, on one hand you talk about personal responsibility... Then you launch into an attack about guns being the tools of the angry,bitter, people demanding guns.

Actually your statement should read... All the angry, bitter , elected government representatives that realize their chances of ruling without ANY encumbrance... Will never happen unless they are able to challenge the TRUE authority and power that is derived ONLY from the will of the people, willing to accept a REASONABLE covenant of governance, in order to avoid chaos and anarchy.

You are right... They don't give a FK about the kids... Neither did hitler, stallin, mao, pol pot, castro, guerrera, SHOULD I GO ON?

Its not an attack...damn it ! (reaching down for my hand-gun, under the comfy chair).

I'm saying, there are a lot of angry bitter people...and its obvious they could blow a valve and go postal, (with all kinds of guns) but they dont. What does that say about Lawmakers, assuming you and I are nothing more than Rogues, just cause were angry and bitter. Guns ARE the tools of really angry and bitter people (many of whom are criminals by trade)
I dont view Hunting with guns as a real sport. (try using a cross bow) Nor does target practice mean anything to me wither way. When guns are "used" they are being put to real work, dirty as it may be. How many people do you actually know that will use a gun on somebody just because they shouted "Hey Congressman, Fk you! "
My Whole point...is hollow hee hee!

Right track for sure.

If doctors used guns to perform abortions we wouldn't have to worry about our second amendment rights.

here's the disconnect (one of 'em) for me:

many people who are very strongly against abortion and believe it to be murder will still concede that in cases of incest, or rape.....they can abide w abortion.

so....is it "murder" in other cases......but NOT in those?????

and that's just one more example of the hypocrisy of those who would impose their beliefs on others.

my take on abortion is much like my take on religion...if you don't don't believe in abortion that's absolutely fine and dandy. that's your call..... don't get one. but don't impose YOUR beliefs on me.

gee glen .....for someone who bridles and bristles at the faintest whiff of gov't overstepping their ground and telling us what we can and can't can't do...if you're not being downright hypocritical, at the very least it sure seems IRONIC that you would come down on the side of more gov't control telling citizens what they can and can't do!

jus' sayin is all.

The right is only for intrusive laws ("big government") when it favors their social beliefs.

WOW!!!! I think we all missed this one from Jimmy.

Jimmy the Government is only supposed to be a tool of the people to avoid anarchy and total disruption of reality.

You have separated the government of our country into a separate entity.

This is very dangerous thinking Jimmy. This is very liberal thinking Jimmy.

My government is only sanctioned by the authority of the people , not the authority of the government. With all your education I hope you take the time to re-examine your position. If you need further explanation, come on over for some BBQ.

You do like to hear yourself talk don't you, even when it's incoherent babbling.

You do like to hear yourself talk don't you, even when it's incoherent babbling.

You have a very difficult time attacking when the truth keeps whacking you over the head. Typical liberal attack... name calling , incoherent babbling...

Please start proving all that education and intelligence Jimmy. You are starting to bore me with fictional rhetoric.

Have a good day!

I'll "settle" this winless argument for you guys once and for all.

Abortion: It is and should be legal for these and perhaps other reasons:
1) When the health of the mother/and/or fetus are in jeopardy
2) In cases of rape

In cases where the health of the mother and/or fetus is in jeopardy, abortion should be paid for by insurance and NEVER paid for by taxpayers.

In cases when somebody elects to get an abortion where there is no mitigating circumstances (health or rape) THAT individual should be SOLELY responsible to pay for the abortion, AND NO HEALTH INSURANCE should cover that kind of abortion, EVER. If somebody is engaging n careless sexual activity not a single red cent of taxpayer dollars should pay for such an abortion, EVER.

When I refer to heath of the mother I don't mean "mental health." I mean physical health, as in the condition of the pregnancy could cause death.

Abortion is an unwinnable argument. You can argue until you're blue in the face (no pun intended) about whether a fetus is a "baby" or not. The logic for me is IF the pregnancy is allowed to continue full term, the fetus likely will turn into a baby. A late term abortion should never be legal in cases where the fetus could survive on its own if labor is induced.

Gun control: Individuals simply have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. It's as simple as that. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime, that individual should be put away for life, period, no parole.

This country should put more responsibility on individuals, both in abortion and gun use.

Well put Bob, but I'm probably more conservative than that, even though none of the righties here would admit it. I'm for choice UP TO three months; after that no abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. Also, no government or insurance paid abortions; the families involved should pay the costs. Finally, I support the second amendment but do not support the ownership of high-capacity ammo clips or assault-style weapons. Our forefathers never intended that.

We're not so very far apart. I despise abortion but I see no federal role in it.
What I dislike is the Feds saying that Georgia, an anti-abortion state, must have the same laws as New York - a pro abortion state.

As to 'assault' weapons. Wish I could get one. They are however, illegal. Many of us own semi-auto knock offs - they are accurate, hold a lot of rounds and the smaller cartridges tend to stop traveling when they hit something (or somebody). That's a huge plus since most of us would defend ourselves but have a real dislike of harming our neighbors.

It would be silly not to have the full capacity mags - if you are going to have any tool you should always get the best if you can afford it- I think the founders did intend that actually, having read their essays on the topic.

I infer from their writings and from the historic realities of that period, that they believed the un-organized civilian militia should have a military style weapon and appropriate ammo. They faced real threats, all the time: French, Indians, British, and outlaws.

The founders hated standing armies, as do I. In those days, you could, and often did, have a cannon.

Talbot