• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

JourneymanN00b

Well-Known Member

Apparently Bill Clinton is in the hospital for sepsis. Sepsis is very treatable if it is caught early, but very nasty with rapid deterioration if it is not. He is currently in the ICU for his own protection.

Do get better soon, Mr. Clinton. Prayers to you on your recovery.
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
So the only way to defeat the war machine is with a war machine? The irony in this is palpable, and this makes the chances of this happening all the less likely.

And of course the problem with doing that is it just substitutes one war machine for another. The only way it would ever work is if everyone agreed on it unilaterally on a global scale. But in this age, that is a practical impossibility.

We are moving back to a point where Americans are majority supporting a military presence in Afghanistan.

But the media has been so dogshit about it considering how those who said we need to leave got pushed to the side.

The higher ups in the media unfortunately are only really concerned about ratings, not content. And this is not unique to this situation. It's more/less been this way for decades.
 

Captain Jigglypuff

Leader of Jigglypuff Army
I sort of feel like Afghanistan was a lost cause after Bin Laden was taken out. The main objective was reached and honesty there is no way anyone or any nation can repair the place politically and bring peace to the nation. I mean the more we tried the worse things got over there with terrorists constantly attacking without any real warning signs or even stopping. It’s harsh to hear this but it’s true. Iraq had some hope as it is about half the size of Afghanistan and there are less caves and mountains for terrorists to hide in. It also seemed like the citizens of Iraq were open to the idea of political change and a much better future that only a small group of Iraqis were terrorists. Afghanistan has way too many terrorists to try and take them down. Nearly twenty years over there hasn’t improved anything for the people nor do a lot of them seem to be willing to change. We tried our best to bring peace to Afghanistan and it failed and we should just accept the loss and get out while we can without making anything else even worse. At some point in time the people of Afghanistan will get tired of the terrorists and the way the government is being run and will most likely revolt. Women will join the political fight to have some more civil rights. This type of thing always happens to oppressive governments.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
And of course the problem with doing that is it just substitutes one war machine for another. The only way it would ever work is if everyone agreed on it unilaterally on a global scale. But in this age, that is a practical impossibility.

Yes, that is what I was implying, although I was speaking more on a national level with the issue of the government spending more on wars than on socialist policies that improve the common person's QoL than a global level of ending all wars (which yes, is probably an impossibility). It wouldn't work because once one tyrant is defeated, another will just take its place. This is why a lot of revolutions fail, especially in third world countries. It's not just enough to overthrow a dictator. You need a solid plan of reform to prevent another one from taking their place in the future. The American Revolution succeeded not just because we were able to defeat Britain and gain our independence, but because we agreed on the Constitution to outline a less corrupt government. Now with the wealthy wielding an absurd amount of money and power to influence politics, we can't end or even limit this unless we pass a series of Constitutional amendments that prevent them from doing so in the future.
 

Captain Jigglypuff

Leader of Jigglypuff Army
Yes, that is what I was implying, although I was speaking more on a national level with the issue of the government spending more on wars than on socialist policies that improve the common person's QoL than a global level of ending all wars (which yes, is probably an impossibility). It wouldn't work because once one tyrant is defeated, another will just take its place. This is why a lot of revolutions fail, especially in third world countries. It's not just enough to overthrow a dictator. You need a solid plan of reform to prevent another one from taking their place in the future. The American Revolution succeeded not just because we were able to defeat Britain and gain our independence, but because we agreed on the Constitution to outline a less corrupt government. Now with the wealthy wielding an absurd amount of money and power to influence politics, we can't end or even limit this unless we pass a series of Constitutional amendments that prevent them from doing so in the future.
Exactly. The US was trying too hard to get Afghanistan to reform its government without a backup plan In case the people were against how we were trying to help them and start attacking us. They weren’t interested in political reform but eventually they will have enough and turn on their own leaders and hopefully figure out a way to create a more stable government with more human rights and get rid of the old outdated laws that were only there because of religious beliefs. Afghanistan was always going to be too hard to get terrorist attacks and fighting among various groups under control because the sheer size of the nation. Having so many natural hiding spaces complicated things even more.
 

Bolt the Cat

Bringing the Thunder
Exactly. The US was trying too hard to get Afghanistan to reform its government without a backup plan In case the people were against how we were trying to help them and start attacking us. They weren’t interested in political reform but eventually they will have enough and turn on their own leaders and hopefully figure out a way to create a more stable government with more human rights and get rid of the old outdated laws that were only there because of religious beliefs. Afghanistan was always going to be too hard to get terrorist attacks and fighting among various groups under control because the sheer size of the nation. Having so many natural hiding spaces complicated things even more.

I'm not just talking about Afghanistan (although the same logic applies), I'm talking about the U.S. The Republican party is quickly becoming the U.S.' Taliban/Nazi party and doing everything they possibly can to avoid helping its citizens, and it all stems from this country's hypercapitalist culture where profit is the end all be all of everything. The kinds of shady practices that the Republicans and the wealthy business owners that support them are relying on are going to need to be legislated out to really fix any of this. The U.S.' handling of Afghanistan is just a symptom of all of this, they really don't care whether or not we win or lose in Afghanistan (and honestly, they'd rather have a perpetual, unresolvable war), they just want to make money from the combat. You're not going to fix this without addressing the root cause, and that's a country whose leaders only care about profit.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Hershel Walker has talked extensively about how much brain damage he's gotten from football, so he might not.
 

nel3

Crimson Dragon
It's great to know that the strength of the democrats spine is just as hard as the republicans unwilling to correctly oppose that rotten orange. 2 Republican spies in the Democrat pool really poison the well. The Democratic spine wasn't very hard to begin with. I just want mansion to leave the party but him forcing Biden to cut the deal is horrible. There is another Republican that needs to be booted or replaced...
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator

PoDiRancher

Well-Known Member
How many years has the US NOT been basing its economy on war, or actively at at war? 0.

Unless people literally revolt and destroy the Military-Industrial Complex, and I mean literally raze it to the ground with fire and weapons, and get rid of all possible genetic heirs to the money and power.

But no one will.

Because forever chasing the strawman that is The Leftest Leftist, the truest Scotsman, is much more important.

Wow, treason and familicide, relax.
First off, no one is pro-abortion. It's called "pro-choice" for a reason.

Second, I do not agree with abortion. I do believe it is murder, and the idea of it bothers me. HOWEVER, I also know since I cannot get pregnant, my opinion on it shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Third, I have spoken to those children. I went to school with foster kids. There were foster kids in my family. I grew up watching them suffer. I grew up watching them die, and as a mere adolescent I could do nothing about it. It is why I advocate for them now. It is clear you have yet to actually speak to these unwanted children. It is clear you haven't checked to see where they end up.

Fourth, with that said, feel free to look up the current and ongoing issues with Texas' foster care system. Then feel free to look up the current issues of foster care within your own state.

Fifth, the Pro-Life party is filled with people who'll never have to deal with consequences of pregnancy and abortion, in particular, men who cannot have children. This is the biggest irony to the movement. You want to make decisions on something that doesn't even affect you. It's no different from straight people trying to ban same-sex marriage. It's easy to ban something when you don't have to bare the consequences of that ban. Is there ever a question as to why men who are Pro-Life have yet to ban vasectomies? That prevents the creation of life entirely.


Sixth, and finally, if you truly do care for these children, help them after they're born:
- Improve the foster care system
- Improve the education system
- Promote better access to child healthcare
- Make it easier same-sex couples to adopt
- Combat child sex trafficking
- Combat school bullying
- Promote access to mental health services for children

There are millions of children already here that need your help. If you truly are Pro-Life, actually support their lives.

Rep. Frederica Wilson said it best: "You only care about a fetus until the moment it is born."

Could've swore I responded to this.

"No one is pro-abortion. It's called "pro-choice" for a reason."

If someone is for the legal right to abortion, then they're pro-abortion, just like someone who is pro-gay marriage is for gay marriage. I don't know what kind of semantics you're trying to play at here, but your logic is off.

"I do not agree with abortion. I do believe it is murder."

If I may be so pedantic, abortion is not murder. Since abortion is legal, it's "just" killing. Murder is a crime, and abortion is not a crime, therefore it's not murder. Not all purposeful destruction of human life is murder, there's instances in which it's legal. Whether or not it should be is what's up for debate. People don't value early stage human life or criminal life, so we allow the killing of the unborn and certain criminals (I don't think we should kill either of them, for the record).

"I cannot get pregnant, my opinion on it shouldn't be a deciding factor."

Anyway, whether or not you can get pregnant means nothing. Some women can't get pregnant, you would chase them from this debate? We live in a civil society where we all have equal say regardless of our biological differences. You may as well tell a woman she can't have a say on male's circumcision practices. That's a barbaric, outdated, unAmerican way of thinking, and is more importantly, illogical.

" I have spoken to those children."

It's great you've spoken to these unwanted children, it's just too bad you don't defend their right to life. What's your point anyway? I have family and friends who were unwanted, and adopted out. I'm glad they were not killed, and so are they, as are most people. Even the worst foster care is better than a needless, violent demise. You're painting the foster care system as a fate worse than death, by your logic you seem to be implying that turning orphanages into slaughterhouses could be interpreted as an act of mercy. I think most of these people are glad to be alive, or will be some day; and if not, if even only one of them is, then thank God they may live the life given to them.

"The Pro-Life party is filled with people who'll never have to deal with consequences of pregnancy and abortion, in particular, men who cannot have children."

The consequences of pregnancy? You mean the consequences which are highly avoidable outside of sexual assault cases, which comprise ~1% of abortions? Actions do tend to have consequences, yes. And men can have children, they may not birth them but they do have them.

"You want to make decisions on something that doesn't even affect you."

Yeah, of course. So do you. As do we all. The slavery of black people didn't affect white people, and yet white people wanted to end something which did not affect them. If anything in some cases it benefitted them, and yet did the right thing by making decisions on something that didn't even affect them. Your logic is poor, and your sense of morality displaced.

"It's no different from straight people trying to ban same-sex marriage."

Marriage had a specific definition, meaning, history, and cultural significance. Nobody was against same-sex unions in America, only against infringing upon the institution of marriage. Arguably, however, the government shouldn't even be involved with marriage to begin with. That'd be sort of like them enforcing male-only pastors just because it's Biblically/culturally accurate/traditional, it's not their place.

"Is there ever a question as to why men who are Pro-Life have yet to ban vasectomies?"

I think you mean enforce vasectomies, not ban them. But enforcing vasectomies is ridiculous, and a total false equivalence. For one thing, it's a preventative measure and we already have an abundance of cheap/free, widely available non-surgical options for prevention which can (but aren't, obviously) utilized by both men and women, and the much dreaded but 99% effective method of abstinence is always there. Also, vasectomies are not always reversible. It's a frankly stupid point and I can't believe this isn't the first time I've heard it, do you actually think it's a good talking point? That's sad, because it objectively isn't.

"If you truly do care for these children, help them after they're born."

Kinda hard to do that when they're killed. If you truly do care for these children, help them be born. If you believe abortion is "murder" then you shouldn't support murder regardless of if you feel you shouldn't have a say in the matter, because when it comes to killing people, we all should have a say.

And forget children for a moment, there's full grown adults who need to be considered too. Would you tell survivors of attempted abortions that they shouldn't be alive? That the abortion should've been a success, they don't belong here because of their mother's choice? Children, especially unborn ones, can't defend themselves. But adults can. Tell her she should be dead:

 

nel3

Crimson Dragon
i love how giddy the democrats are about "closing the deal" that they caved into trying to comply with the 2 republicans they have hiding in their party. quit the happy BS of meaningful progress, you failed miserably in your very few important tasks because you are afraid to lose monetary and political support. the way to deal with it is damn the corporate/republican naysayers and give them an ultimatum to obey or get out... what happened to the +$3billion bill?? oh yeah, you kneecapped yourself...
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Right now I would do my best to lower the amount by taking off a few years from the total deal rather than cut programs, only because it’s better to set up the programs and force them to try and cut them later on, rather than take something out that was promised and will benefit people, and risk voting motivation next year, if it comes to that because who knows what Sinema wants.
 

nel3

Crimson Dragon
they still screwed up by caving to the 2 cavities' whims. some programs are adversely affected by some time based delays ie climate programs. the climate programs will always get the shaft as along as the unsustainable oil industry suppresses them for a few more hundred million a year the 2 parties have no spine. one is completely corrupt and spineless to their perceived leader. the other is slightly less corrupt and a huge push over to the other side and accepting their BS excuses. being a push over doesnt force the other side to say "maybe we should be nicer/go lighter on them??". give an inch take a lightyear is their motto all while tossing no2 on their supporters and pandering to the right minority support.

the republicans are perfectly fitted to kneecap any program later on. they just threaten support, cut funding and the dems will say thats how the cookie crumbles. the people will be none the wiser and think the program was doomed to fail from the start.
 
Top