Forum Replies Created
-
You say that, JI, but Gurny hasn’t yet graced us with his opinion! :-)
I disagree with your opinions, but I try my very best to separate belief from the person. I can respect the person without necessarily respecting the opinion. If that makes sense.
Though, I am sceptical of your claimed political neutrality given your response, which appears very partisan. Such conspiracies are not common outside of Trump fanatics.
I would say the same thing. I am appearing from a neutral standpoint, to some degree. I can criticise the Democrats, for example, and there is much to criticise, from the ‘Squad’ to their mistaken views on trans rights. However, an investigation into Trump for wrongdoing isn’t that. If a Trump appointed FBI lead, who considers himself to be Republican, launching this is deemed ‘political’ I don’t think you’d consider any action to retrieve documents as part of an investigation to be non-political, and it’s based on nothing but your own beliefs about elites. This speaks more of your own political bias, not mine.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Now Trump pleads the fifth amendment in the case of his business dealings in New York today as is his legal right. However the Donald has stated in the past that he doesn’t understand why people ” take the fifth ” they should just answer truthfully, could you make it up? Actually the Donald can but on this occasion declined, I wonder why.
It’s because the deep state elite have got to him! ;-)
There is one party which is against democratic norms in the USA, and it’s not the Democrats. One which couldn’t accept an election loss and made efforts to overturn. One which is currently gerrymandering for its own benefit. One which sees an investigation by the FBI as against democracy, based on unevidenced conspiracies about evil elites. Opposing this is not against democracy. Supporting those trying to tear down legal responsibility for actions, because they support those involved is. No-one is above the law in the USA.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Ah, yes. The Republican FBI head is secretly working for the Democrats in a fiendish plot to retrieve documents, as in any legal investigation. This is all conspiracy theory, and a worry. It shows how far the right have fallen on respect for the law and democracy. If their favoured candidate is involved in an investigation it has to be crooked, but waffle about Benghazi, Hunter Biden’s laptop (or some other spurious claim) has to be real. For some reason, those FBI heads, who are Republicans, are working with Democrats for some deep state power grab. Make it make sense
I am surprised you have fallen down this rabbit hole of tin foil hattedness, JI. I thought you were more reasonable than that. It will be paedophile rings from pizza restaurants next and Q’s plan to out them all.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Ah. I assumed you lived in Staines. :-)
2 users thanked author for this post.
Well, they have raided his house. We do not know what for; it could be to retrieve a document which he was refusing to hand over. As little as that. The hyperventilating from the right, who seem to expect the former president to be above the law, is nothing short of pitiful. Yet another example of the American right showing they do not care about things like democracy and the law.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The game of course, how has non football crept in again?
You were the one who posted this on a non-footy thread. :-P
1 user thanked author for this post.
Bloody heck. Let’s not get like the self-declared Man Utd of the conference (a.k.a Grimsby Town) were when they first got relegated. We are down here because we deserve to be and our name means little. We aren’t bound to stroll the league.
9 users thanked author for this post.
They probably are reluctant because of that, but ultimately money talks. Local rags are cash strapped and if they felt they could see some returns they’d come back. As it is, they need to make cut backs and they don’t see the Iron as being worth the same budgeting as they did for Grimsby. Previous poor relations would have potentially nudged them into their decision that bit easier.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Squad depth and fitness of Butterfield and Whitehouse may come into play there. I am however far more confident of not being in a relegation scrap now. :-)
1 user thanked author for this post.
If God’s heart breaks on abortion, it could get its arse into gear about miscarriages.
What’s often not said, is that abortion rates were actually higher pre-Roe v Wade. While much of the decline could be attributed to greater birth control, it does mean that illegality is not a restriction to abortion. The difference being the unsafe nature of it. Women get raped, pregnancy is a risk where the mother’s life may be in danger. People can sit and judge and say they may not make the bulk of cases, but the fact is women’s lives are either put at risk or through misery for grand moralising from the religious.
Moreover, as has been said, it’s the woman’s body and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences. The men can scuttle off and moralise about the woman, as they so often do. I wonder how many men would be willing to have forced vasectomies (a reversible process), until willing to try for a family, to prevent unwanted births. I am willing to bet many would then complain about their freedom.
Contraception doesn’t always work, pregnancy affects them for their entire life, putting their own careers and lives in a different way. At a stage where the zygote/embryo/foetus is of decreased sapience I am struggling to justify why it should be placed equal or above to the woman. We can disagree with the motives for some for abortion, but frankly, it’s the lesser of all evils, given the alternatives. The consequences of such we saw before, as anyone who is familiar with works like Motherhood with Bondage could attest.
JI complains about Roe v Wade being an imposition of a particular worldview on others, but wants to impose his worldview on women going for this, based off Christian beliefs. People have a right to be pro-life, but they shouldn’t have the right to impose their beliefs on others. Restrictions on people’s freedoms can be justified, where deemed necessary or moral. It’s people’s beliefs which drive the objection to abortion. I don’t think we should restrict people’s rights over their own bodies based on beliefs. It should be evidence driven. If Christians, or whoever, don’t like it, then tough. People shouldn’t be forced to be controlled by dogma, no matter its stripe. Christian, Islamic, communist or fascist.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Maybe Peter Swann isn’t planning on building flats in place of Glanford Park. He’s wanting to turn it into a Gulag. :-O
1 user thanked author for this post.
NI hasn’t posted an ad-hominem. It’s not addressing any argument of yours. It’s a quote of Gandhi’s opinion.
1 user thanked author for this post.
