Duck07 Thread

[QuackininBama]

Bama, your argument is flawed.

Goducks75 said: "But seriously, the two party system is awful and horribly inefficient."
Bama replied to that statement: "Wait, so your not in favor of checks and balances"

I am merely pointing out that being in favor or not of having a two party system has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances.

This is what happens when you spend to much time in text books. All I'm asking is, the two party system, Democrats, Republicans. What exactly in inefficient about this? The county has always been split between the two, two different ways of thinking. Neither is wrong and in fact, I support a balance between the two. But what the person is suggesting is they don't like the current system, yet they offer no alternative. I asked a simple question. What's the alternative?

[MFRDuckFan]

I understand his point about the two party system being flawed in that if you are a registered Independent, you cannot (at least in Oregon) vote in the primaries. I like to consider myself a middle ground individual but had to switch over to being a full fledged Democrat in order to vote in the primaries. It is a screwy system that disenfranchises people from voting.

Also, it isn't right that a person from either mainstream party (R or D) can just switch over to being an Independent when they don't win their own party's primary. i.e. Charlie Crist. The man is a staunch Republican & decides to switch because it's a loophole. What's up with that?

[greenyellow]

I understand his point about the two party system being flawed in that if you are a registered Independent, you cannot (at least in Oregon) vote in the primaries. I like to consider myself a middle ground individual but had to switch over to being a full fledged Democrat in order to vote in the primaries. It is a screwy system that disenfranchises people from voting.

Also, it isn't right that a person from either mainstream party (R or D) can just switch over to being an Independent when they don't win their own party's primary. i.e. Charlie Crist. The man is a staunch Republican & decides to switch because it's a loophole. What's up with that?

I think Crist is a poor example since everything I read about him was that he's a political opportunist who'd register as a Communist if he thought it'd get him elected. The party ID doesn't matter as much when someone is running for office since it's something that's a lot more fluid than actually registering to vote.

[justducky0]

Bama, your argument is flawed.

Goducks75 said: "But seriously, the two party system is awful and horribly inefficient."
Bama replied to that statement: "Wait, so your not in favor of checks and balances"

I am merely pointing out that being in favor or not of having a two party system has nothing to do with the system of checks and balances.

This is what happens when you spend to much time in text books. All I'm asking is, the two party system, Democrats, Republicans. What exactly in inefficient about this? The county has always been split between the two, two different ways of thinking. Neither is wrong and in fact, I support a balance between the two. But what the person is suggesting is they don't like the current system, yet they offer no alternative. I asked a simple question. What's the alternative?

This is what happens when you spend to much time in text books.

ya edukashun is dumm

What's the alternative?

Glorious Russia...... I kid.. I do not have an answer but something needs to happen because I think we can all agree the current gridlock that is our political system is infuriating.

[Duck07]

You going to answer the question or show us all how smart you are? Just answer the question? No need to whip out text books and essays and or things your teacher told you, just use your own judgement and what you would like to see to improve our political system. Don't overthink it, or feel the need to need to use fancy graphs and charts and statistics, just start writing.

Can you please explain how a two-party dominant system provides a system of checks and balances since that is your argument?

[Duck07]

Further, your implication that checks and balances are exclusive to democracies is also flawed. We could certainly remove the 'courts ability to rule a law unconstitutional' for instance which would not instantly turn the United States of (Corporate) America into a tyrannical government like you claim. Obviously those who wanted to subvert the system would be better able to but now we're so far off topic that...

I believe we've been living in a one-party system for some time now and when taking an honest examination of the policies that each administration has put in place since Reagan I don't see how that can be argued. Good old Ronny took America from being the world's largest lender to debtor in less than a decade! Yay Reagonomics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... OaCemmsnNk

Reading books is a good thing people and everyone needs to educate themselves rather than taking everything you are told as fact.

[Phalanx]

Any politician that wants to take away my reproductive rights needs to jump off a cliff. When a man can give birth to a child himself, then he can have a say on his own behalf. Until then, let women decide for themselves what is right for them.

That is all.

So...you are allowed to murder another person in order to preserve your 'reproductive rights'? This argument has never made sense to me. There are always alternatives to infanticide. Adoption, for instance.

[Duck07]

What about the moral argument for over-population?

[Duck07]

For the religiously inclined (let's not kid ourselves on this one either, this is very much a religious question so either recuse yourself or don't start with any insults, capiche?), how can you separate killing a fetus versus dropping a smart-bomb in a market?

[MFRDuckFan]

Any politician that wants to take away my reproductive rights needs to jump off a cliff. When a man can give birth to a child himself, then he can have a say on his own behalf. Until then, let women decide for themselves what is right for them.

That is all.

So...you are allowed to murder another person in order to preserve your 'reproductive rights'? This argument has never made sense to me. There are always alternatives to infanticide. Adoption, for instance.

How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place? Why does it always have to be the woman that has the ultimate responsibility because it certainly isn't a man carrying that baby to term now is it? It's not his life that's going to be changed because he can just walk away. She, unfortunately, cannot. She is forever changed, whatever her decision. Some men stay but the reality is that many do not. And actually, I wasn't really just talking about abortion. That was your assumption. I was talking about the recent rhetoric from politicians trying to even take birth control away.

If we were living in a perfect world, adoption would be a great choice but when you are a young girl who has been dumped by her boyfriend & her parents have disowned her, your choices can be limited. Where does she live & how does she earn a living while pregnant? Are you going to open your home to her? What if it was your daughter?

Many women have a stable living situation that they can give their baby up for adoption or even keep the baby with a wonderful support system. The major point here is having a safe CHOICE. You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

For those who don't believe in abortion, that is your right and I respect your position. However, I will gladly fight for your daughter & my daughter's right to have a safe abortion if that should be their choice. Adoption is a wonderful choice & I support it as well but reality can sometimes make that decision impossible.

[greenyellow]

My only thing about abortion is that no form of government insurance should be paying for it, unless in the cases of rape, incest, and health problems for the mother. I believe that abortion should be a choice that's available but it's also, in most cases, an elective procedure that a person should have to pay for themselves with their own money or through a private insurance policy. Making elective pregnancies off-limits for payment by any government source would take away the main source of debate over the issue as well.

People should really have to think about the consequences of having unprotected sex and not rely on the government to correct it. You got yourself into the situation, you should have to deal with it yourself since it's a personal, not governmental, matter.

[MFRDuckFan]

My only thing about abortion is that no form of government insurance should be paying for it, unless in the cases of rape, incest, and health problems for the mother. I believe that abortion should be a choice that's available but it's also, in most cases, an elective procedure that a person should have to pay for themselves with their own money or through a private insurance policy. Making elective pregnancies off-limits for payment by any government source would take away the main source of debate over the issue as well.

People should really have to think about the consequences of having unprotected sex and not rely on the government to correct it. You got yourself into the situation, you should have to deal with it yourself since it's a personal, not governmental, matter.

The rhetoric being fed to people is that Planned Parenthood uses Federal funds to pay for abortions and that is absolutely 110% NOT TRUE. I agree that the individual/individuals (yes, men should be held accountable for the pregnancy too) need to find the funds on their own & not have the government pay for it.

I would like to see birth control free for anybody who wants it. Assuming people are going to be abstinent is naive at best, especially teens. Why not educate them that abstinence is best but give them the tools to prevention? Just my opinion of course, but I'll never understand why people keep burying their heads in the sand. Face it head on!

[Phalanx]

How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place? Why does it always have to be the woman that has the ultimate responsibility because it certainly isn't a man carrying that baby to term now is it? It's not his life that's going to be changed because he can just walk away. She, unfortunately, cannot. She is forever changed, whatever her decision. Some men stay but the reality is that many do not. And actually, I wasn't really just talking about abortion. That was your assumption. I was talking about the recent rhetoric from politicians trying to even take birth control away.

If we were living in a perfect world, adoption would be a great choice but when you are a young girl who has been dumped by her boyfriend & her parents have disowned her, your choices can be limited. Where does she live & how does she earn a living while pregnant? Are you going to open your home to her? What if it was your daughter?

Many women have a stable living situation that they can give their baby up for adoption or even keep the baby with a wonderful support system. The major point here is having a safe CHOICE. You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

For those who don't believe in abortion, that is your right and I respect your position. However, I will gladly fight for your daughter & my daughter's right to have a safe abortion if that should be their choice. Adoption is a wonderful choice & I support it as well but reality can sometimes make that decision impossible.

I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

[goducks75]

To make another point, both parties have screwed the country up in their own and different ways so it's about equal.

i agree with this

I second that motion! But seriously, the two party system is awful and horribly inefficient.

Wait, so your not in favor of checks and balances, rather you would replace this system with....what? A monarchy? Dictatorship? Socialism? Whats your replacement?

Do you even know what checks and balances are?

[MFRDuckFan]

How about a man putting a sleeve on it & taking some responsibility of not getting her pregnant in the first place? Why does it always have to be the woman that has the ultimate responsibility because it certainly isn't a man carrying that baby to term now is it? It's not his life that's going to be changed because he can just walk away. She, unfortunately, cannot. She is forever changed, whatever her decision. Some men stay but the reality is that many do not. And actually, I wasn't really just talking about abortion. That was your assumption. I was talking about the recent rhetoric from politicians trying to even take birth control away.

If we were living in a perfect world, adoption would be a great choice but when you are a young girl who has been dumped by her boyfriend & her parents have disowned her, your choices can be limited. Where does she live & how does she earn a living while pregnant? Are you going to open your home to her? What if it was your daughter?

Many women have a stable living situation that they can give their baby up for adoption or even keep the baby with a wonderful support system. The major point here is having a safe CHOICE. You should read up on what women did before abortion became legal. They went into back alleys & many died from those procedures. Outlawing abortion doesn't mean they're not going to happen just means more women are going to die.

For those who don't believe in abortion, that is your right and I respect your position. However, I will gladly fight for your daughter & my daughter's right to have a safe abortion if that should be their choice. Adoption is a wonderful choice & I support it as well but reality can sometimes make that decision impossible.

I just got done arguing with a guy who has no problem killing women and babies with drones as long as it doesn't consume over 5% of our GDP, and now I get to read a woman who wants to kill babies if carrying them to term is too much inconvenience, or a guy who thinks it's okay to kill babies because we need to cull some of the herd anyway. I live in a bloodthirsty culture. In public school, I can remember being in history class and each chapter was highlighted by a war; 95% of the class was just going from war to war, and that was the summation of American History 101. All I can say is, it's a good thing that you people have sports to placate you, or God only knows what you would be occupying yourselves with. I feel like I live in the Last Days of Pompeii or something. Some people think that Judgment Day is not coming. It is. There is accountability to the Author of life for these things. Do you think that saying, "But God, they were going to do it in a back alley anyway" is going to sway Him?

You obviously don't live in the real world or have ever known any woman who has had to make such a hard choice. I've never known any woman that would treat a pregnancy as an "inconvenience". You make it sound so easy to just carry the baby to term & give that child up for adoption. Not one statement from you lends any responsibility to the male counterpart of this whole situation. You can't tell me that God is perfectly okay with a man going around making women pregnant and the woman must bear the complete responsibility of the situation. That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. How about talking about the realities of society & not always making this a religious discussion. Shouldn't God be judging the man that impregnates a woman and walks away forcing her into this situation? I see, it's the woman's fault and she is going to hell because she chooses an abortion after being left alone in this situation. Riiiigggghhhhtttt..... Makes me want to sign up.

Bloodthirsty? Give me a break. I would love to see you become socially active & come up with solutions instead of pointing your fingers at those who don't necessarily follow your doctrines. It's easy to quote from a centuries old book vs. taking a clear look at what's really happening. Open up your home to pregnant women who have nowhere to go. Stand up & have your voice heard against war. Solutions.

If people spent a little more time focusing on helping OTHER people instead of judging (which, if I remember right one of the Commandments is "thou shalt not judge") the world could be a much better place.