House GOP passes bill, prevents statutory rape victims, etc. from receiving abortions - Polidicks

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29650267]I know. The two party system fucks the third/fifth/sixth other parties that would provide a more flexible diversity that could benefit the current political system.[/quote] in american politics a pluralist form would result in a very anarchical approach to actual politics and would lead to a hell of a lot more influence from lobbyists - the reason being that the two political parties provide a significant amount of security to politicians - funding, and getting elected. Lobbyists as they are now already have enough push in our political system, I don't want them controlling even more, sorry. The marginalized groups currently are so small in the political spectrum that they would literally not effect politics in any positive way. The marginalized groups I believe you're talking about might be, for instance, the Green Party? If the green party were to play a major role in politics they'd be a massive distraction from actual important issues by pushing the "green voice" instead of focusing on important socio-economic issues. This is the problem with specialized groups - you have numerous parties that are extraordinarily similar in base ideologies with a few tiny differences in them, and these differences are touted to garner votes. That's an issue because then there's numerous separate groups that in order to get anything done will have to collaborate on a massive scale, and each individualized group demands that their "voice" gets into the bill leading to a bill that's mottled as [I]shit[/I]. [quote]And I'm glad that the two party system did something nice for a change. I will never stop asking about things. That is why I ask for things, so I can learn.[/QUOTE] just gonna end on saying guess what, if it weren't for the two party system barack obama would never have been elected providing the foremost racial breakthrough in half a fucking century so yeah. [editline]6th May 2011[/editline] oh and here's another point: the american public is aware of the other parties we just don't vote for them know why? because practically every american opinion, sans the handful of libertarians out there, fits into the platform of either the democratic or republican party. American society is naturally developed into two distinct halves of a political spectrum.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;29652333]in american politics a pluralist form would result in a very anarchical approach to actual politics and would lead to a hell of a lot more influence from lobbyists - the reason being that the two political parties provide a significant amount of security to politicians - funding, and getting elected. Lobbyists as they are now already have enough push in our political system, I don't want them controlling even more, sorry. [/QUOTE] I had to translate a few things so I'm sorry if I do some interpretations wrong. If you think that a more pluralist form in american politics would create a anarchical approach to politics is absurd, why would this happen? I checked out what Lobbyists are and they don't seem to bad. They are only trying to get a voice to the leading party and that just makes it sound like the two party system isn't working that well. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;29652333]The marginalized groups currently are so small in the political spectrum that they would literally not effect politics in any positive way. The marginalized groups I believe you're talking about might be, for instance, the Green Party? If the green party were to play a major role in politics they'd be a massive distraction from actual important issues by pushing the "green voice" instead of focusing on important socio-economic issues. [/QUOTE] I'm talking about: Centre Party Liberal Party The Christian Democrats Green Party Conservatives Social Democrats Sweden Democrats Left. All of these have enough seats in the goverment to both handle and influence in important questions and they don't seem to be a massive distraction to "actual" important issues. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;29652333]This is the problem with specialized groups - you have numerous parties that are extraordinarily similar in base ideologies with a few tiny differences in them, and these differences are touted to garner votes. That's an issue because then there's numerous separate groups that in order to get anything done will have to collaborate on a massive scale, and each individualized group demands that their "voice" gets into the bill leading to a bill that's mottled as [I]shit[/I]. [/QUOTE] Doesn't this only mean that the politicians have to learn to negotiate better and face the fact that you can come to an agreement? I don't know but it seems to be working very good for Sweden to have this many small spcialized groups that also have a say in what goes on. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;29652333]just gonna end on saying guess what, if it weren't for the two party system barack obama would never have been elected providing the foremost racial breakthrough in half a fucking century so yeah. [/QUOTE] I would like to say that in 1838 Pitcairn islands (British colony): Women is granted voting rights for the first time. Here is the percentage for Women in the goverment. Rwanda 56% Sweden 45% South Africa 45% Cuba 43% Island 43% Germany 33% Schweiz 29% Britain 22% China 21% France 19% Russia 14% India 11% Japan 11% I guess all those parties have really disjointed the communication between parties and they haven't focused on the important stuff. so yeah. [QUOTE=BrickInHead;29652333]oh and here's another point: the american public is aware of the other parties we just don't vote for them know why? because practically every american opinion, sans the handful of libertarians out there, fits into the platform of either the democratic or republican party. American society is naturally developed into two distinct halves of a political spectrum.[/QUOTE] Interesting. I didn't know that though. So that is the reason half of the USA voted for Republicans even though they have such horrid and disgusting views.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29647762]I said something in a steam chat 2 minutes ago: [i]a woman has lots of sex and gets pregnant she's a whore who needs to be punished with the pain of childbirth so she stops doing it, a man has lots of sex and he's a player[/i] That's the attitude I keep hearing here. We're mostly men here and we're in no place at all to tell women what they should and shouldn't do[/QUOTE] No I know, I understand, but I just don't know why a woman would take 9 months to want to get an abortion, it's just...irresponsible, I think.

[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;29637780]well, surely you know it's not that simple, and condoms aren't an absolute, failure free form of contraception. [editline]5th May 2011[/editline] actually, never mind. a discussion on the morality of abortion would probably completely derail the thread. apologies.[/QUOTE] You could just save the receipt and use it as proof for an abortion.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;29654631]No I know, I understand, but I just don't know why a woman would take 9 months to want to get an abortion, it's just...irresponsible, I think.[/QUOTE] She wouldn't. If you can find me one example of a voluntary abortion at 8+ months, not out of medical necessity or other need, i'd be stunned. Abortions are hard enough on women at like 2 months, taking a near full grown baby out of there would be a little tough mentally.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29653327]-snip-[/QUOTE] Just being the devil's advocate here, but the US's two party system isn't really something that was officially defined or created (which it sounds like you're suggesting). It's more the natural result of having only one seat per district (winner-takes-all), so trying to "get rid of it" would be trying to get rid of the symptom instead of the cause. Now, making the case for switching from single-member districts to to a multiple-winner system is a fair argument, but a complete overhaul like that would be pretty difficult to achieve. And by "pretty" I mean "extremely." Also, the problem with lobbyists is that they give an unfair advantage to the rich. In essence they trade money for political power.

[QUOTE=Echo 199;29657140]Just being the devil's advocate here, but the US's two party system isn't really something that was officially defined or created (which it sounds like you're suggesting). It's more the natural result of having only one seat per district (winner-takes-all), so trying to "get rid of it" would be trying to get rid of the symptom instead of the cause. Now, making the case for switching from single-member districts to to a multiple-winner system is a fair argument, but a complete overhaul like that would be pretty difficult to achieve. And by "pretty" I mean "extremely."[/QUOTE] It would also threaten both major party's political influence, so neither would vote for it, save for the ones with integrity.

[QUOTE=Echo 199;29657140]Just being the devil's advocate here, but the US's two party system isn't really something that was officially defined or created (which it sounds like you're suggesting). It's more the natural result of having only one seat per district (winner-takes-all), so trying to "get rid of it" would be trying to get rid of the symptom instead of the cause. [/QUOTE] Brick said that it evolved naturally so I understand what you mean. Maybe instead of getting rid of it completely, evolve around it, make changes untill you achive something everyone benefits from. [QUOTE=Echo 199;29657140]Now, making the case for switching from single-member districts to to a multiple-winner system is a fair argument, but a complete overhaul like that would be pretty difficult to achieve. And by "pretty" I mean "extremely."[/QUOTE] I can understand the US would have crazy days but I don't think that it would be impossible. Sure, extremly difficult but I can still dream right? :v: [QUOTE=Echo 199;29657140]Also, the problem with lobbyists is that they give an unfair advantage to the rich. In essence they trade money for political power.[/QUOTE] I didn't know this. When I read about it, it sounded like they wanted there voice to be heard, so they went to the leading party and tried to influence them.

[QUOTE=GeneralFredrik;29658331]Brick said that it evolved naturally so I understand what you mean. Maybe instead of getting rid of it completely, evolve around it, make changes untill you achive something everyone benefits from. I can understand the US would have crazy days but I don't think that it would be impossible. Sure, extremly difficult but I can still dream right? :v: I didn't know this. When I read about it, it sounded like they wanted there voice to be heard, so they went to the leading party and tried to influence them.[/QUOTE] You obviously have no idea what kind of power they have :v:

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;29654631]No I know, I understand, but I just don't know why a woman would take 9 months to want to get an abortion, it's just...irresponsible, I think.[/QUOTE] Yeah those nasty women purposely waiting until the procedure is much more dangerous and invasive who do they think they are

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29659619]Yeah those nasty women purposely waiting until the procedure is much more dangerous and invasive who do they think they are[/QUOTE] ........Zeke, that's kind of his point. They couldn't decide till it became dangerous and invasive.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29659680]........Zeke, that's kind of his point. They couldn't decide till it became dangerous and invasive.[/QUOTE] He's saying they are doing it on purpose

[QUOTE=Lazor;29643340]i had forgotten abortions were such a huge part of the federal budget that they were a priority to eliminate thanks for the reminder[/QUOTE] Pardon me while I play devils advocate, but I believe it isn't the magnitude of the matter, but the principal. Just like it's understandable for me to not want my tax money paying for some welfare queen's inner city dwelling, it's perfectly understandable for people who have religious concerns to not want their tax money funding abortions. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the legislation's severe limitation of women's freedoms, but it also infringes on its supporters' freedom to not have their tax dollars fund something that they see as immoral. This is where I find myself to be really right leaning - As long as the government is providing support to [i]anybody[/i], someone's always getting the short end of the stick. I think if the government had never started to just give away cash, these dependencies wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be in this situation.

[QUOTE=Ender_Wiggin;29660307] Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the legislation's severe limitation of women's freedoms, but it also infringes on its supporters' freedom to not have their tax dollars fund something that they see as immoral. [/QUOTE] The problem with that argument is that if it was applied fairly the military would suddenly find the money it gets from taxes cut into a third

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29660585]The problem with that argument is that if it was applied fairly the military would suddenly find the money it gets from taxes cut into a third[/QUOTE] I'm just sharing my own opinion. I'm not asking that others agree with me, only that they understand my perspective. Personally, I'm not a fan of our current massive military spending. I don't really think we need all of it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29659714]He's saying they are doing it on purpose[/QUOTE] No he's not :v: Irresponsibility=/=on purpose You can be irresponsible by accident...

[QUOTE=Swilly;29660980]No he's not :v: Irresponsibility=/=on purpose You can be irresponsible by accident...[/QUOTE] Irresponsibility implies negligence Negligence implies a conscious decision to do something incorrectly

It's time to bring a reality to face: Republican politicians themselves likely have no moral conflict over abortion. The fact is, the whole "AAH TAXPAER MONZY FOR ABURSHINS!" argument is just one of the many ways that the party drills the anti-government-anti-taxes-small-government-personal-freedoms bullshit into the heads of the weak-minded. Taxes, in of themselves, have terrible reputations among Americans, and yet they still expect to receive the government social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and above all, public education. Basically, this is part of their plans to minimize government. Lower taxes and regulation for the top ten percent, bottom ninety starves. They then support privatization of important government services. With people having to pay for everything, and the low regulation allowing businesses to give low wages, the bottom ninety is not able to pay for things like education and healthcare. The result is a race of serfs and peons which are incapable of making decisions about government. Democracy starves, and then we have a modern kingdom/hierarchy. /surprisingly realistic and possible tinfoil hat On the case of political parties, the best solution is to present proportional representation. Basically, we hold national elections, voting by party. That way, if states vote 30% Democrat, 30% Green, and 40% Republican, they still hold sixty-percent left-leaning votes and third parties are allowed to have their say in government. Of course, this would also require a strict understanding by the people of the changing ideas of political parties, but we have the phones and the internet, so it can't be too hard. To provide an alternate viewpoint: Under the assumption that voting corporations don't tamper with the ballots, democracy will always follow the will of the people, and the people don't always have the right decisions in mind. Education helps, but factors will always cause voters to be misinformed and make the wrong decisions. To simply say "IM RITE UR RONG" in the face of every voter is a gross failure of our democratic republic on our part, no matter how correct the statement may be. I'm sorry but, its the truth.

"Women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator" That means a woman so scared and terrified she can't even fight back. A woman who doesn't fight back is as you can imagine the worst affected. 0.o

[QUOTE=Zeke129;29662701]Irresponsibility implies negligence Negligence implies a conscious decision to do something incorrectly[/QUOTE] Using implications incorrectly :v: Especially with what defines a word and such.

If the GOP really cared about life I think they would end a couple of wars. This just women hating.

[QUOTE=Bletotum;29643730]maybe when they die things will get better[/QUOTE] No man the younger people get older and then more Republicans are born again. You can't win.

[QUOTE=joes33431;29663285]It's time to bring a reality to face: Republican politicians themselves likely have no moral conflict over abortion. The fact is, the whole "AAH TAXPAER MONZY FOR ABURSHINS!" argument is just one of the many ways that the party drills the anti-government-anti-taxes-small-government-personal-freedoms bullshit into the heads of the weak-minded. Taxes, in of themselves, have terrible reputations among Americans, and yet they still expect to receive the government social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and above all, public education. Basically, this is part of their plans to minimize government. Lower taxes and regulation for the top ten percent, bottom ninety starves. They then support privatization of important government services. With people having to pay for everything, and the low regulation allowing businesses to give low wages, the bottom ninety is not able to pay for things like education and healthcare. The result is a race of serfs and peons which are incapable of making decisions about government. Democracy starves, and then we have a modern kingdom/hierarchy. /surprisingly realistic and possible tinfoil hat On the case of political parties, the best solution is to present proportional representation. Basically, we hold national elections, voting by party. That way, if states vote 30% Democrat, 30% Green, and 40% Republican, they still hold sixty-percent left-leaning votes and third parties are allowed to have their say in government. Of course, this would also require a strict understanding by the people of the changing ideas of political parties, but we have the phones and the internet, so it can't be too hard. To provide an alternate viewpoint: Under the assumption that voting corporations don't tamper with the ballots, democracy will always follow the will of the people, and the people don't always have the right decisions in mind. Education helps, but factors will always cause voters to be misinformed and make the wrong decisions. To simply say "IM RITE UR RONG" in the face of every voter is a gross failure of our democratic republic on our part, no matter how correct the statement may be. I'm sorry but, its the truth.[/QUOTE] Fucking EVERYONE seems to thhink thhhe Republicn party is fuckiing some 1984 bullshit it seems Randoom pondering: wouldnt it be nice if all womens toilets had pregnancy tests built in and warned hher as soon as she got pregnant and peed in it? Then a lot of abortions could take place MUCH earlier on and be less traumatic for all involved. Not in all cases though

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;29668087] Randoom pondering: wouldnt it be nice if all womens toilets had pregnancy tests built in and warned hher as soon as she got pregnant and peed in it?[/QUOTE] this is the most brilliant thing i've ever heard

I try my beest

[QUOTE=thisispain;29668100]this is the most brilliant thing i've ever heard[/QUOTE] Might get annoying the 100th a toilet tells you you're pregnant, though.

um ok ?? BUT think of the fetuses!

[QUOTE=Swilly;29666152]Using implications incorrectly :v:[/QUOTE] He's not, actually. [QUOTE=The golden;29668161]Put these in the mens bathroom too, but have it so it says "Pregnant" randomly.[/QUOTE] Only if there's other response options as well, like "Yum" or "Oh God stop peeing on me."

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29668194]Might get annoying the 100th a toilet tells you you're pregnant, though.[/QUOTE] maybe if it's just like an indicator light that seems good then again, i'd hate to be a teenage girl with conservative parents who have these toilets

Do all republicans live in the 18th century?