So undecide me, my friend.

I did what I thought was right. If you think it is bad, it can be fixed....

Help me out here, does anyone really think this is skillful? Am undecided.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

Now THAT is a positive political ad.

Hopefully very effective for the undecided.

I share Chris Matthew's bewildered outrage. Obama simply forgot that these debates are pure political theater while Romney did not.

It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so dire that Obama took the intellectual, policy wonk approach to woo the small, yet inexplicably important undecided voter. To be undecided at this point in the election should be instant disqualification from voting, parenting, and driving, imho.

Obama wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He earned his money through writing. It's exactly because his perspective connected with so many people that he earned both his money and the office he holds.

It's easy to gripe about this policy or that, but he ain't exactly old money. When you look at wealth it's important to look at how the money was earned. Presumably anyone qualified to be president has already demonstrated their faculties. In so doing, they've likely earned a comfortable living.
>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bmacs27:
Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.
consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

>> ^bmacs27:

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.



of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.

consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


Of course not. The entire way we conduct our election process is undemocratic. We should take a page from Columbia and actually elect someone from out own ranks.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


We prefer the dragged-out version maintaining mineral rights, gun ownership, and polygamy.

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

[Talking voice]
Yeah man, just left town man
I'm here, here
Had to get outta town baby
Where you stayin' now?
You can pick me up at the round busstation
Or I can take a plane
There's your cab? I'll be right over
It's gonna be a few sec, and I'll tell you what went down

[Kool Keith]
I stayed in New York, depressed, walkin' mad through the block
Watching brothers go down, my project friends smoking rock
My group divided and everthing was undecided
I was drinking, thinking: "Damn, man, my boat is sinking"
Everybody's wack and new groups comin' back
They on Arsenio, booty's on video
Watch this clown rhyme that's paid for on primetime
Everybody's mean, they're hard, they're killing mothers
Shootin' bang bang, fakin man killing brothers
I had to turn off the radio from all the Walt Disney
Mickey Mouse and friends all talking pop and lippy
Girls excited for what? And over-infatuated
People got their brain washed and folks got manipulated
They start beleiving Donald Duck made the earth
The industry was cursed since the Dinosaur's birth
(The industry was cursed since the Dinosaur's birth)

[Chorus]
It's over now
No problems in this world
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl
It's over now
My mind was in a twirl
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl
It's over now
No problems in this world
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl
It's over now
My mind was caught up in a twirl
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl

[Kool Keith]
Flying nighttime, eating peanuts on the plane
With no moneycontrol, my stress builds on my brain
My ticket's oneway
I'm out to southern Caliway
I left behind some people that wasn't even equal
I thought back with chicks and freaks in 86'
When Marley was in in control +the funky magic mix+
I had the limousine on hold with the real chauffeur
Ripped the ???? up with Ultra and I felt like Oprah
Girls in flocks and fans in lines from blocks
I didn't even hear a peep of you rappin' mister
I was your idol and probably on your older sister
Now you bad you signed stupid with a recorddeal
Your image is butt you perpertrating Shootin' Steel
Holdin' guns on albumcovers just to make funds
You the man quick fast payed out the ?anoass?
You can see I'm back and clear on stereo
with my own style, my intimite material

[Talking voice]
Ye, your style changed every year
Think about what you did
Used to dance, used to wear suits
Then you came back to wearing hip-hop clothes
Then you went back to wearing suits

[Chorus]
It's over now
No problems in this world
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl
It's over now
My mind was caught up in a twirl
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl

[Kool Keith]
No accountant, my lawyer keepin' checks on the low
Money, expenses for trips I didn't know
Agencies finding shows I could get myself
Writing rhymes at night in the house by myself
I open mailboxes, all I see was more bills
Gettin' cold chicken, walkin' down Bronx hills
Askin' moms for 50 cent, just to pay my rent
I had no will to ill, my mind was out to kill
I called up Kurt, got a big deal signed with Capitol
Money's flowin' now wild suckas out blowin' up
They my pupic care, and pupils still growin' up
Sucking mean while the g'ism as it hits the rhythm
They want that new style, no money it's called freestyle
Taping off the radio, smokin' from my crack vial
They on my tip now, as always as usual
You forgot me, but I didn't forget you

[Chorus]
2x It's over now
No problems in this world
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl
It's over now
My mind was caught up in a twirl
It's over now
I'm home chillin' with my girl

Yeah...

[Fades out, consisting of scratching sounds]

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

This is a list of all the US Senators and their stance concerning PIPA. Currently, there are 38 in support, 19 opposed, 7 leaning toward no, and 36 undecided. If you click a senator's name you can see their information, including the phone number of their office that you can call and voice your opinion. These offices WILL have someone answering the phones so I called both of my senators to tell them to vote no and was done in less than one minute.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call