Advertisement
by Bombadil » Thu May 16, 2019 7:14 pm
by The Black Forrest » Thu May 16, 2019 7:18 pm
Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.
"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..
Lol.
by Genivaria » Thu May 16, 2019 7:22 pm
Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.
"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..
Lol.
by Kowani » Thu May 16, 2019 7:23 pm
Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.
"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..
Lol.
by Gormwood » Thu May 16, 2019 7:28 pm
Genivaria wrote:Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.
"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..
Lol.
He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.
by Jebslund » Thu May 16, 2019 7:39 pm
Saiwania wrote:There is no point in hiring someone for a full time business position if their labor cost is more than whatever income they manage to generate, some of it has to be taken as profit for a business. The harsh truth is that if someone is working poor, their business activity simply doesn't generate a lot of income relative to their cost. It doesn't take a lot of skill to flip a burger and it is easily automated. Something that is low skill but high turnover, of course isn't going to pay well. It is something to give unemployed people their first job but not something to actually raise a family off of. Its inherently something someone only does for a year or less ideally, or until they find something better.
Saiwania wrote:The reason a lot of CEOs are exorbitantly rich is because they're not paid on a fixed salary basis like a typical lower level worker would be. They're paid in stock options instead, so if they own a ton of company shares by default; if the larger business is doing well- the net effect is that they earn millions over the course of just a year if not less time over someone who had to buy all of their shares with their own capital over quite a long period.
Saiwania wrote:The theory goes that CEOs and executive types within corporations should be paid in stock because broadly speaking, if they make good high level decisions, and any positive results are reflected in a higher share price, that it provides people at that level the incentive to do their jobs well, as opposed to leaving for a rival business that'll pay them more or give them more fringe benefits than they can get staying put.
Saiwania wrote:A rich person being rich, enables them to make large capital purchases and transactions for micromanaging a large firm and etc. If rich people aren't allowed to stay rich, they're aren't able to do all of this to as much of an extent. You'd need to accept that if your vision was the law of the land, that it'd be a worse situation for small business overall and would favor larger corporations to their expense.
Saiwania wrote:Sometimes businesses that're only starting out, can't afford a ton of things and that includes paying everyone a "living wage" as you call it.
Saiwania wrote:A year or two out, either the business model is a bad idea or has bad execution and it'll fail and close up shop, or it will eventually become successful, but needs to be left the hell alone by government in order for this to happen. I'd be loathe to discourage entrepreneurship and risk taking to the extent that your proposal would do this.
by Cappuccina » Thu May 16, 2019 7:39 pm
Genivaria wrote:Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..
Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.
"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."
.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..
Lol.
He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.
by Luna Amore » Thu May 16, 2019 7:41 pm
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Liriena wrote:Agreed.
I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.
I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to euthanising the elderly, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-euthanasia bills came with a lot of funding and nursing support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unwanted elderly or where the family has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.
by Jebslund » Thu May 16, 2019 7:48 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.
by Luna Amore » Thu May 16, 2019 7:54 pm
Jebslund wrote:Luna Amore wrote:Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.
Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good DeedTM is not one of them.
by Jebslund » Thu May 16, 2019 8:03 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Jebslund wrote:Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good DeedTM is not one of them.
I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.
After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.
by NeoOasis » Thu May 16, 2019 8:09 pm
Cappuccina wrote:
Pro...birth?
Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.
by New haven america » Thu May 16, 2019 8:56 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Jebslund wrote:Or to put it another way, creating a situation where an unexpected, unintended situation cannot be dealt with in a manner that does not create undue hardship does not imply that I should try to put resources in place for easing said hardship. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that hardship being eased through government funding, but someone's desire to ban something they don't like and then pat themselves on the back for having done their Good DeedTM is not one of them.
I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.
After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.
by Gormwood » Thu May 16, 2019 9:06 pm
NeoOasis wrote:A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.
by The Free Joy State » Thu May 16, 2019 9:09 pm
New haven america wrote:Luna Amore wrote:I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.
After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.
It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.
by Bombadil » Thu May 16, 2019 9:10 pm
New haven america wrote:Luna Amore wrote:I mean, besides the death of the baby. This is the perspective of the other side. Ignoring that doesn't make a discussion easier.
After a certain point, it becomes clear some of you don't actually want to have a discussion. If you do, go back and actually consider what I posted instead of racing to the snarky quip.
It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.
by Liriena » Thu May 16, 2019 9:14 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by New haven america » Thu May 16, 2019 9:27 pm
The Free Joy State wrote:New haven america wrote:It's nice to know the site has a mod who seems to be ok with both rape and incest.
While I am pro-choice -- and I want to repeat that firmly once again -- I'm pretty sure I've not seen Luna say anything that suggests being "okay" with rape.
We can argue strongly against our political opponents without slurring them.
by Cappuccina » Thu May 16, 2019 9:43 pm
NeoOasis wrote:Cappuccina wrote:Pro...birth?
Anyways... politicians aren't known for honesty, not surprising really.
A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.
by Gormwood » Thu May 16, 2019 10:04 pm
Cappuccina wrote:I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.
Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.
by Alouite » Thu May 16, 2019 11:00 pm
New haven america wrote:The Free Joy State wrote:While I am pro-choice -- and I want to repeat that firmly once again -- I'm pretty sure I've not seen Luna say anything that suggests being "okay" with rape.
We can argue strongly against our political opponents without slurring them.
They replied to posts that were discussing Alabama's new abortion law, which bans it in cases of incest and rape, saying that we need to look at "The Other Side" (Pro-life, which is their own side...) and why they decided to do this.
So either they're ok with rape and incest (Which I don't think they are, least I hope they aren't), or they're fine with laws like this getting passed so long as they win more ground... I honestly can't decide which is worse. Either that, or they just picked a really shitty post to reply to, in which case, I'll take back what I said.
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu May 16, 2019 11:00 pm
Luna Amore wrote:Dumb Ideologies wrote:
I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to abortion, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-abortion bills came with a lot of funding and psychological support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unexpected/unwanted pregnancies or where the partner has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.
Because they are different conversations. Whether or not family services should be government funded does not hinge on whether or not abortion is legal.
Put yourself in the mindset of someone who views a fetus as a full-fledged person -- or -- apply your logic to any other group and it becomes obvious in my opinion:I should point out that I'm not doubting that there are decent religious or moral reasons to be opposed to euthanising the elderly, it's just that many advocates seem focused on saving themselves than saving other people - as if the act of a ban is their job done, wash their hands and never mind the consequences. I'd have a lot more sympathy (and this comes back round to the current poll a little, I suppose) if anti-euthanasia bills came with a lot of funding and nursing support services - and it'd need more than a token little gesture - for those with unwanted elderly or where the family has chosen to desert. Because I'm sure that compassion and support for those who are impacted by your Good Christian Decisions™ would be theologically quite sound also, certainly moreso than riding off into the sunset and letting people deal with the consequences of your political decisions. Such is the hollowness of the "supply-side Jesus" synthesis.
Or to put it another way, not wanting you to kill a dependant doesn't imply I am now responsible for their care. There may be (and I think are) good arguments for that care being government funded, but someone's opposition to what they see as murder is not one of them.
by USS Monitor » Thu May 16, 2019 11:18 pm
Bombadil wrote:..having said that I did see an argument that banning abortion helps to uncover incest and paedophilia because the evidence can't be quietly aborted.
by Alouite » Thu May 16, 2019 11:20 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Bombadil wrote:..having said that I did see an argument that banning abortion helps to uncover incest and paedophilia because the evidence can't be quietly aborted.
Implying they wouldn't just go to some back-alley abortionist or use a coat-hanger or herbal medicine to try to do it themselves...
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Angevin-Romanov Crimea, Dimetrodon Empire, Herrebrugh, Ifreann, Maximum Imperium Rex, Niolia, Plan Neonie, Rio Cana, Soviet Haaregrad, Talibanada, Uiiop
Advertisement