Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 02:54 PM) That's a spectacularly awful idea, but I'll just note again that the government explicitly does not fund abortions. Why is that any more awful than the abortion itself? And no, it doesn't, for now. But some people are clearly advocating for that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 02:37 PM) The end game of what you're advocating is children needlessly suffering. Yeah, better to just kill them before they get here! Problem solved. Tell you what, i'd be agreeable to the government (state, fed, whichever) paying for this stuff, if sterilization is a requirement. If you're dumb enough to get pregnant when you can't afford it, such that the child will be a ward of the state, then you lose your right to conceive for a period of time. Not sure if the science is there to do some kind of temporary sterilization, but if it is, we should start using it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 11:50 AM) Depends a lot on time of year. If it's August, heck you can find places on the Great Lakes that could be fun with beaches but other things to do as well. Like Put-in-Bay (Lake Erie off Ohio shore), Door County (WI), Saugatuck/Douglas (MI), etc. If you are going fall or winter and want something tropical I'm not as much help as we've rarely done that yet with our kids, but maybe one of the barrier islands in Texas if you want something different? Planning to go late Sept-early Oct to take advantage of the "off season" rates when kids are back in school.

Alright parents, I need some ideas for a family vacation in the lower 48. I have a 3.2 year old, so there needs to be some very kid-centric things to do. We've done driving trips to Hilton Head and Disney/florida beach house the last two summers. I want to go west and camp, but I don't think my son is old enough for that yet. Sadly a beach and water is the biggest draw, and some kind of theme park is a good way to pass the time. Any other coastal destinations that people would recommend? We thought about Myrtle Beach, but I can't really tell why that place is so special. There doesn't appear to be anything THAT amazing there. We're debating another Disney/florida trip, but I feel weird about it since we just went last year. But he had such a blast last time (and my wife and I enjoyed it too) that it would be a guaranteed fun trip.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 08:48 AM) Well at least now you're supporting strong funding for PP and touting the effectiveness of that funding, so I guess that is an improvement. Little leap of logic there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 08:43 AM) I can't think of a single example in recent years of where paying for Birth Control has been remotely controversial or challenging and I'm 100% sure no one else can cite a single case as well. No, those are two different things. Someone going to PP to get birth control has never been an issue for 99% of people out there. It's a personal choice for you to walk down to the clinic and buy some. No one can stop you. Forcing a company to cover birth control for their employees has nothing to do with that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 08:37 AM) You're 100% right. They do stink at this. It would be far better if we had a health care system that actually was able to cover everyone in the country and give them genuine opportunities for regular care and family planning. We took a solid step forwards in 2010, unfortunately between states rejecting the Medicaid expansion and Medicaid not being all that strong anyway, there's still a good deal of ground to cover. It also doesn't help when the women's health bits get specifically targeted for political gain, whether it be Jeb Bush yesterday, the Hobby Lobby case, or even in the PPACA in the first place (I can't be the only one who remembers people complaining about the PPACA saying you couldn't charge women more than men). When has PP funding for birth control and the like ever been a problem? Beginning in high school I knew girls/dated girls that routinely went to PP for birth control and it was insanely cheap. That was the last 90's, I really doubt things have changed since then.

I must be the only person in this city who cares less and less about football each passing year. If i'm listening to any sort of sports talk and they start talking football, I immediately turn it off. I'm ready for the games to start. Anything having to do with camp, deflategate, Ray Rice, etc. etc., I could not give two s***s. I actually start despising the game itself because i'm always inundated with the off the field crap.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 07:53 AM) No. That was the case back in the 1970s, it no longer is based on the available statistics. Middle class suburban white women are able to obtain more regular birth control which has been denied to lower income women. In other words, there's a reason why Planned Parenthood is in this business in the first place, they're serving the community which otherwise doesn't have access to this type of health care due to costs. Of course the obvious solution is to not expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy if you don't want a child/can't have a child... but I know, personal responsibility and all.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 5, 2015 -> 07:45 AM) Which is the point we liberals always make...are all those who are pro-life also willing to adopt all these unwanted kids (or they simply can't afford to provide them a good life) and assume responsibility for them through adulthood? If not, the long-term governmental costs in terms of prison/incarcerations and social safety net programs are going to be at least 20x the cost of sex education and condom handout programs, not to mention health care costs for STD treatment. If that doesn't work, there's always the overpopulation, global warming/diminishing natural resources argument. Isn't the myth that most abortions are obtained by poor inner city women, when in fact the biggest chunk are middle class suburban women?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 05:10 PM) Youre going to have to pay either way, so why not pick the cheapest option? Morals? Principles? Slavery is pretty cost effective, but, you know, it's wrong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 12:08 PM) Pretty much everything the media told us about this case was wrong. No hands up, no shots in the back. The damage is done though. They got their outrage, their riot, and the TV numbers.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 4, 2015 -> 11:51 AM) the only p**** here is your friend that is cheating on his wife. Serves him right getting busted +1000 People who cheat are immoral and weak. I don't care how s***ty your marriage is, work on it or get out, THEN go bang the 22 year old. I cannot fathom doing something like that to my wife.

http://imgur.com/gallery/LK8sE

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 03:34 PM) Sure, but then again Walker could make the same argument for Wisconsin and he's more likely to get support from the primary-voting and caucusing base than Kasich is. If a candidate can't pick up enough convention delegates early on, they'll struggle to continue raising funds and stay in the race. If Kasich survives that, I could see him being the "establishment" (or whatever you want to call it) candidate that the party ultimately gathers around, like Romney in 2012. I just don't know if he can make it that far. He's sort of an unknown though, which I guess is one thing i'm happy about. I'm tired of these other guys and I think most of them will be easy targets for dumb things they've said and/or done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 03:20 PM) For whatever it's worth, I heard Kasich compared to Hunstman--just an incredibly bland guy for the national stage that'll have a hard time catching on earlier enough to really hang around. If he can win Ohio for the party though that's a pretty big deal.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 03:04 PM) 1. No (at least not me) 2. 1) Kasich -Very large gap- 2) Gilmore 3) Paul 4) Bush 5) Christie -Large gap- 6) Rubio 7) Jindal 8) Pataki -Large gap- 9) Perry 10) Fiorina 11) Graham 12) Carson 13) Huckabee 14) Trump 15) Walker 16) Santorum 17) Cruz I'm not voting for Hillary no matter what. The question then is which Republicans do I like enough to get my vote over a 3rd party candidate, and right now it's the Top 5 on my list, but I'm starting to get very iffy on #5. It sucks that Kasich really has absolutely no chance. I think he'd make a great President. Why do you think he has no chance? I think when it comes down to the final handful of people he'll be there. No one wants another Bush, no one really wants Trump in charge, and Paul is too far out there for most conservatives. I bet it comes down to Christie and Kasich.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 03:06 PM) Because "Self Defense" had the SYG text built into it by the judge. One of the jurors also referenced that law/standard in comments after the trial in explaining their vote, FWIW. They're intertwined, so I don't think there's an issue providing that instruction. SYG is just a subset of self defense law.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 02:40 PM) So I haven't been in this thread in a long, long time. I am curious about the GOP'ers in here, what their thoughts are on two things... 1. Is there anyone here who supports Trump? 2. What candidate(s) for the GOP nomination (there are 17 in the field from what I last read) do you like so far? 1) I do not. 2) None really. Kasich seems mildly interesting.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 11:49 AM) We broke ground on a 4-6 month home addition project in mid October. Finally got far enough in late April that we had to move into my parents house. As the calendar turns to August, still haven't moved back in. And did I mention that my wife is due to deliver baby #2 in 33 days? Zero stress in my life at the moment. You'll have to share your remodel story once it's all complete (and life is a little less hectic with a newborn). We live in a ranch and want to add a 2nd story and an addition off the back as the family grows. Probably in the next couple of years.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 11:24 AM) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/...=social_twitter Ha, I just read that. Good article. Pretty sad story all around. I stumbled upon it via Gawker, which of course took the article as more proof that Wilson is racist. I don't see it, but you know, i'm an affluent white male so the presumption is that I too am a raging racist.

QUOTE (shipps @ Aug 3, 2015 -> 09:54 AM) Very cool. Now you get to look forward with constantly fixing and replacing things in a moments notice usually at the worst times. That's if you bought a somewhat older home. Or if you buy a house that doesn't need any work because of problems, but your wife gets bored with the dated, yet entirely functional and ok looking bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, landscaping, etc. Not that I have any personal experience with that or anything...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 30, 2015 -> 04:24 PM) That Oskee thing made no sense, I still dont get it. O=Success and academics? What Our Success = Knowledge Effort Energy Duh.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 29, 2015 -> 06:13 PM) The best argument I've heard about the whole raising money for conservation by shooting endangered animals business is this: the thing that is threatening these animals is the way that many of us humans regard them. We don't value their lives, well-being, habitat, etc. While we may get some money to throw at the problem by encouraging some legal, controlled hunting, we may in fact be making the actual cause of the problem worse. Hunting them trains us to continue believing that killing them is fine, morally speaking. Nobody wants the animals to be extinct but no one kill makes them extinct. But if every person can kill them for their own selfish reasons and feel no guilt, nobody will feel responsible for the collective well-being of the species. I killed one to put it on my wall sure, but that's just one and I paid a lot of money for it. It's hard to say for sure what the best way to approach it is. People have made similar arguments about global warming/pollution/the environment and I think there is a good counterargument in that case: technological and policy solutions could very realistically be a relatively permanent solution to the human-induced CO2 emissions problem and if we can do that rather than try to change worldwide attitudes, we should go ahead and do it. But when we're talking about preserving a living species, it's an ongoing problem that seems very difficult to fix with some sort of magic bullet solution. If someone could convince me that using the market to save them could work, I'd be open to it even if I would continue to be fairly disgusted by the means (killing innocent animals for no reason beyond self-fulfillment/aggrandizement). But that sort of ignores reality right? They're not going extinct because people are killing them just for s***s and giggles or even for sport. I'm sure for most animals the biggest problem there is habitat loss. But even with regard to human killings, there's a market out there for hides, ivory, skins, etc. We can pretend like that will just magically disappear, but we all know it won't, at least not 100%. Keep working on that angle, obviously, but an additional method to save these animals IS to allow some heavily regulated, for-profit hunting. It has to be done right. There needs to be control. But what they've found is that in some cases, MORE animals get protected and MORE people guard against poaching because they want to appeal to big game hunters (i.e., have animals to shoot, usually old, non-procreating animals). There are a few examples of big game ranges in Texas that are doubling and tripling the number of safari animals because with the price for the few that they allow to be killed, they are able to buy, bring over, save, and then multiply other animals. I think there's an antelope that went extinct in Africa but is thriving in Texas. I was reading on some of this yesterday and a lot of conservation groups and even the US Wildlife service agrees that the big game hunting can and does help conservation efforts. The devils in the details though and how the system is set up and managed. As a principle, while it sucks that a beautiful animal will be killed, if it's saving even more, i'm all for it. I think very similarly with regards to zoos and their breeding programs. Yeah it sucks those animals are stuck in cages and small enclosures, but at least they're still around and even breeding.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jul 30, 2015 -> 08:28 AM) I'd love to see ONE example where a white kid in a typical suburban area or even near a university campus was shot to death in similar circumstances... Not sure if it was by a university campus but... http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/29/white...irrors-ferguson