Quote :

"The State of North Carolina is about to pay litigation costs to fight for the right to favor pro-life citizens over pro-choose citizens. The state has approved “Choose Life” license plates while steadfastly refusing to allow a pro-choose plate. Now, at a time of budget shortfalls and unemployment, the state will pay to litigate for the right to discriminate on the basis of the content of such messages. "

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/13/north-carolina-sued-for-issuing-pro-life-license-plates-while-refusing-to-issue-pro-choice-plates/

9/13/2011 1:37:46 AM

What poor writing. Should be pro-choice not pro-choose

9/13/2011 7:09:14 AM

Yeah, seriously!

On a similar note, something I haven't though about before...do the "Choose Life" people support a woman's right to choose? Like saying, "It's cool. You should be allowed to choose. I personally think you should choose to have the baby, and I want to encourage you to do that..."

9/13/2011 7:43:37 AM

Nah, don't think so.


Also, "choose" looks weird when you read it a bunch of times in a row.

9/13/2011 8:33:31 AM

choo-choo-choose life?

9/13/2011 10:19:07 AM

shouldn't it be "choose flight" or "choose lighthouses?"

what the hell is the state doing getting cutesy with political license plates for? did they think they weren't going to draw negative attention?

9/13/2011 10:44:03 AM

The sad part is that Bev had a chance to veto it and she didn't.

9/13/2011 11:35:33 AM

Quote :

"On a similar note, something I haven't though about before...do the "Choose Life" people support a woman's right to choose? Like saying, "It's cool. You should be allowed to choose. I personally think you should choose to have the baby, and I want to encourage you to do that...""

Nope. In "Choose Life" 'choose' is like a meta-choice between "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". Not the actual choice between abortion and not that Pro-Choice wants you to be able to make.

9/13/2011 11:39:42 AM

Is it inconceivable that someone could oppose abortion while also being opposed to laws that prohibit it?

9/13/2011 12:08:34 PM

Quote :

"The ACLU has filed suit on behalf of four state residents after lawmakers rejected six proposals for plates bearing words such as “Respect Choice” or “Trust Women; Respect Choice.”"

[Edited on September 13, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : Did anyone click the link and read the article?]

9/13/2011 12:49:52 PM

^^It's not conceivable that "Choose Life America, Inc" fits that description.

http://www.choose-life.org/index.php

9/13/2011 1:09:01 PM

HockeyRoman, I thought the same thing!

And, disco_stu, thanks for explaining it like that. It's ridiculous, but it does make sense. It's still annoying that they managed to take over the notion of choice, too...they're so good at that semantic stuff.

[Edited on September 13, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : Simpsons]

9/13/2011 3:21:14 PM

The abortion issue is one of the least important topics on the table, but it sure does get tossed around a lot. I think that it must be a distraction scheme conspiracy, or a way to keep America divided I don't know.

9/13/2011 7:58:22 PM

Quote :

"Is it inconceivable that someone could oppose abortion while also being opposed to laws that prohibit it?"

this is amurrica, where we impose our morals and religion on everybody

you damn heathen

9/13/2011 8:20:03 PM

stop the choose life plates.

problem solved.

/nobody gets any cookies. bunch of pussies.

9/13/2011 8:42:56 PM

Until this thread, i always thought "choose life" WAS the "pro choice" phrase.

I've been describing myself as a choose-lifer for years, because I assume it meant people should be able to choose, but i personally think they should choose life...

weird...

9/13/2011 11:24:38 PM

Quote :

"they're so good at that semantic stuff."

Liberals get the scientists and comedians, conservatives get the communications majors I guess...

9/13/2011 11:25:48 PM

JITTERBUG

9/14/2011 11:12:53 AM

Quote :

"Liberals get the scientists and comedians, conservatives get the communications majors I guess..."

This is only funny because I know you actually believe it. You fancy yourself "part of the elite" that understands what's best for everyone else.

In reality, progressives have the semantics department covered, in that they actually support regression - taking power away from people and putting it in the hands of government. Real progress would be demanding that the government get out of our lives and never settling for less, not just hoping that we'll eventually get "the right people" in office.

9/14/2011 11:20:36 AM

If you view the government as some foreign, independent being and not representative of the citizens that empower it, then of course you'll feel that way. You get the government you deserve. Pretty sure you start from the position of thinking most other people are too stupid to have your "correct" beliefs, so of course you dislike the idea of government and democracy.

9/14/2011 11:54:48 AM

Quote :

"Real progress would be demanding that the government get out of our lives and never settling for less, not just hoping that we'll eventually get "the right people" in office."

Okay, Okay, off of the soap box Reagan. We tried the whole "anti-government" experiment in the 90s and what we got out of it was the Enron scandal and Arnold as a California Gov.

9/14/2011 12:53:42 PM

Quote :

"If you view the government as some foreign, independent being and not representative of the citizens that empower it, then of course you'll feel that way. You get the government you deserve. Pretty sure you start from the position of thinking most other people are too stupid to have your "correct" beliefs, so of course you dislike the idea of government and democracy."

You're getting this a little wrong. It's not "you get the government you deserve." It's "we get the government we deserve"...and we do. "We," on the aggregate, are pretty damn ignorant, especially in the areas of economics and history.

The difference between me and "them" is that I don't want to force my beliefs on anyone; I want people to be able to live their lives as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of someone else. If you have backwards values, I might try to explain to you why mine are better, but I'm not going to demand legislation or constitutional amendments that force you to follow my values.

Quote :

"Okay, Okay, off of the soap box Reagan. We tried the whole "anti-government" experiment in the 90s and what we got out of it was the Enron scandal and Arnold as a California Gov."

If you think we've tried anything remotely "anti-government" in the past 100 years, you're sorely mistaken. Our entire financial system relies of government-mandated institutions.

9/14/2011 1:06:14 PM

What economic books would you say are required reading to be "in the know" and can I buy them from authors that speak regularly on late night AM radio?

9/14/2011 1:25:22 PM

Before I waste time responding to anything you say, let's clear something up. Are you PinkandBlack? If not, who the fuck are you? Have you just been trolling as a "conservative" on that username for shits and giggles?

9/14/2011 1:46:49 PM

Dude, chill the fuck out. If you read Sports Talk you would know the deal. It's cool.

Why are you always so angry about politics, brah?

Are you just trolling us as a teenage anarchist?

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM. Reason : zip]

9/14/2011 1:49:59 PM

I'm so mad bro.

9/14/2011 2:01:08 PM

You really are. Someone posts something negative about Ron Paul and you jump in immediately to fuss about so on and so forth. Just let it go.

9/14/2011 3:00:35 PM

I'm pro baby killing. One less mouth on the welfares.

9/14/2011 4:56:45 PM

Quote :

"If you think we've tried anything remotely "anti-government" in the past 100 years, you're sorely mistaken. Our entire financial system relies of government-mandated institutions."

Yes, because of issues that we have had in the past. If governments doesn't provide the final say, then what happens is that profeteers start to go out looking for money at the expence of the everyday citizen. This has happend in the past, educate yourself before you do the "anti-government" shpeel. I swear, conservatives say that just to try and sweep away the shitstorm of the Bush Administartion. It's bad government, not bad republican administration.

9/14/2011 7:47:31 PM

and what might those "issues" be? I'm willing to bet that when we look at whatever you claim is an issue caused by a lack of government control, we'll actually see that government directly contributed to it instead

9/14/2011 11:15:39 PM

EN motherfukin RON.

More secifically the winter power outage crisis in Cali and not the insider trading at the fall of the company. It is a clear example of total abuse of power in a system that was deregulated. The govt could have put a quicker end to it, if the Bush admin had acted faster (which they didn't fr very political reasons that I kind of understand), but the main disaster was caused by profiteering.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 10:33 AM. Reason : df]

9/15/2011 10:25:06 AM

Child labor, rampant workplace injury and death, discrimination against black people, women, homosexuals.

Watchout BanjoMan. What they'll do next is extrapolate that if there was magically no government that the magical hand of the free market would magically guarantee that none of this could possibly happen.

9/15/2011 10:35:16 AM

discrimination against blacks was directly a cause from government, in a number of ways, not the least of which was actual laws that put it in place.

And enron was an example of deregulation issues? I see it as an example of outright fraud. but, some of its policies are indicative of monopolistic problems, something we already had regulations for that weren't followed. but then, we see another problem, created by government regulation:

Quote :

"The utilities were then required to buy their electricity from the newly created day-ahead only market, the California Power Exchange (PX). Utilities were precluded from entering into longer-term agreements that would have allowed them to hedge their energy purchases and mitigate day-to-day swings in prices due to transient supply disruptions and demand spikes from hot weather."

bam, gov't induced problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

and this is free-market?

Quote :

"Energy deregulation policy froze or capped the existing price of energy that the three energy distributors could charge"

and really, reading that page, it doesn't sound like deregulation. it sounds like just plain shitty regulation.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 6:39:31 PM

Quote :

""The utilities were then required to buy their electricity from the newly created day-ahead only market, the California Power Exchange (PX). "

that is deregulation because it was no longer government controlled but given to an independent firm and they proceeded to do what they did.

9/15/2011 6:57:31 PM

where are all the conservatives getting this anti-goverment stuff lately? I have heard the same exact thing from many different people. What is your conservative media source?

9/15/2011 6:59:23 PM

I'm not a conservative. Many of the "anti-government" types on here are not what you would call conservative. Traditionally, many liberals have been anti-government as well. Why? Because the government sometimes creates policies that are very destructive.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 7:09:04 PM

it's deregulation when the government mandates the use of a third party marketplace? really, BanjoMan?

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 7:11:27 PM

The world according to conservatives:
Something goes wrong due to republican actions/policies: It's the government's fault
Something goes wrong due to democratic actions/policies: It's the democrats' fault

9/15/2011 7:35:09 PM

Quote :

"discrimination against blacks was directly a cause from government, in a number of ways, not the least of which was actual laws that put it in place."

So according to aaronburro, discriminatory laws predate and are the cause of discrimnatory behavior. How else would you like to re-write history? If the Federal government didn't step in, free-market forces would have weeded out slavery too?

9/15/2011 9:05:14 PM

The analog to "Choose Life" is not "Pro-Choose", it's "Choose Death".

9/15/2011 9:14:11 PM

Bullshit. Pro-Choicers aren't "kill all fetuses" and the attempt to make it look as such is more theistic horseshit. Blight on this world.

9/15/2011 10:25:36 PM

Quote :

"So according to aaronburro, discriminatory laws predate and are the cause of discrimnatory behavior. "

do you deny the existence of Jim Crow laws? The fact is, after the end of slavery, there were laws that specifically established discriminatory practices. And, as much as you don't want to admit it, one of the drivers of the creation of those laws was Reconstruction and the backlash against it.

Quote :

"If the Federal government didn't step in, free-market forces would have weeded out slavery too?"

actually, yes. Within 25-30 years, slavery would have been far too expensive to continue.

9/15/2011 10:54:36 PM

It boggles me that you can admit that slavery predates Jim Crow laws and still maintain that Jim Crow laws are the cause of racial discrimination. Maybe you and I have different definitions of "is the cause of". So, if Jim Crow laws are the cause of racial discrimination, did the racist fucks that wrote the Jim Crow laws just magically become racist the instant that the laws became codified? Are the racist fucks that are still racist actually not racist now that Jim Crow laws have been repealed?

Quote :

"actually, yes. Within 25-30 years, slavery would have been far too expensive to continue."

citation needed. Or is it OK to drop a load on the thread and declare it as fact?

9/16/2011 9:10:40 AM

"da gubbiment invented racism *drools oatmeal onto shirt*" -- Aaron Burro

9/16/2011 10:10:16 AM

Free labor (minus meals and a shed to sleep in) = Not profitable after 1890

9/16/2011 10:32:11 AM

Quote :

"do you deny the existence of Jim Crow laws? The fact is, after the end of slavery, there were laws that specifically established discriminatory practices. And, as much as you don't want to admit it, one of the drivers of the creation of those laws was Reconstruction and the backlash against it."

this is what you call thinking with an agenda, which is not critical thinking. You need to think critically about everything.

9/16/2011 4:19:26 PM

Slavery existed in many parts of the world. Most countries managed to eliminate it without a civil war. Nevertheless, statists will tell you that we needed a war to end slavery and that if we had not had a war, we would still have slavery today.

In reality, the civil war caused irreparable damage to the United States. It created a divide that still exists today.

Quote :

"this is what you call thinking with an agenda, which is not critical thinking. You need to think critically about everything."

Take your own advice. You're like most of the people here: still buying into the "our team" versus "their team" bullshit. Politicians don't give a shit about what happens to you.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2011 4:24:43 PM

that may be true to some extenet. I have long believed that politicians harp onto certain fundamental principles to keep americans devided. People get all worked up and choose sides over extreme issues that are not pertinent to what's on the table, and this strategy keeps many americans distracted.

And, no, you don't know me very well it seems. I am a liberal thinking person that is against abortion, so how does that fit into your preconceived notion of myself? I dont want to harp on it, I'm just saying. Libs are just as guilty of ignoring scientific evidence that doesn't fit their agenda as the GOPers.



[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 4:39 PM. Reason : df]

9/16/2011 4:35:35 PM

My point is that, in the grand scope of things, these debates about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are extremely trivial. Think about the areas that both parties do agree on: preventative war, the war on drugs, corporate welfare. They distract the public with these "wedge" issues that would quickly become non-issues if the government weren't so involved.

[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 4:48 PM. Reason : ]

9/16/2011 4:41:12 PM

I didn't suggest that we needed a war, only that the Federal government was responsible for ending slavery, not the states. Maybe that would have changed given time and magical conjecture about what free market forces can magically do, maybe not.

I disagree that abortion and gay marriage are trivial and I'm surprised that a card carrying Libertarian would say that personal freedom is trivial. But I guess I'm just brainwashed by the government to be distracted for some nefarious purpose.

9/16/2011 5:05:33 PM