# What Are Your Political Views?



## emmatheweirdo (Nov 5, 2014)

*I'm just curious as to what everyone believes. 
I tried my best to put all political parties in the poll. I'll include an other option for those that I miss. 
Also, feel free to discuss and debate your opinions! But remember... Please be civil. Debate can be fun, but don't be mean!
Thank you!​*


----------



## Beleated_Media (Nov 5, 2014)

EVERYONE NEEDS TO SHUT UP ABOUT NEW WARS AND USE THEIR MONEY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Really though, everyone is fearing that new wars will happen. No one seems to care about Global Warming, their has been evidence that this is really happening. So ya, I'm rooting for anyone who supports global warming.


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 5, 2014)

What a good thread idea, I foresee nothing going wrong in any future replies.







That being said, I don't discuss politics. I don't have any particular views that align me to any specific side. And they're quite boring to discuss casually regardless.


----------



## Beary (Nov 5, 2014)

/me runs away
I like happy things and rainbows


----------



## emmatheweirdo (Nov 5, 2014)

Beary said:


> /me runs away
> I like happy things and rainbows



Agreed c:

- - - Post Merge - - -



Beleated_Media said:


> EVERYONE NEEDS TO SHUT UP ABOUT NEW WARS AND USE THEIR MONEY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
> 
> Really though, everyone is fearing that new wars will happen. No one seems to care about Global Warming, their has been evidence that this is really happening. So ya, I'm rooting for anyone who supports global warming.



Bless this post


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

You probably know what I already am. I am primarily right-winged.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Nov 5, 2014)

Politics is a joke.

That's my view.


----------



## SuperVandal (Nov 5, 2014)

LambdaDelta said:


> Politics is a joke.
> 
> That's my view.



it's a joke until people start whining about how their government is failing them and taking their constitutional rights away from them lol

Edit: oh wait, people still manage to do both at the same time


----------



## NewLeaf13 (Nov 5, 2014)

Republican, definitely. I feel like one of the only Republicans in Texas, even though we're getting another republican governor.


----------



## f11 (Nov 5, 2014)

I support democrats but I don't fully know everything happening around me in the world, so can't say what  I am. Basically, I'm too young tbh


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

NewLeaf13 said:


> Republican, definitely. I feel like one of the only Republicans in Texas, even though we're getting another republican governor.



I'm Republican too.


----------



## SuperVandal (Nov 5, 2014)

NewLeaf13 said:


> Republican, definitely. I feel like one of the only Republicans in Texas, even though we're getting another republican governor.



You do realize Texas is probably the cliched southern Republican stronghold?


----------



## EmmaFrost (Nov 5, 2014)

Independent, because nothing else really makes sense to me. I've voted for both conservatives and liberals depending on their specific platforms and issues of concern at the time. I tend to be fiscally conservative, moderate on foreign policy, and a liberal in terms of social justice. So I'm all over the place, really.


----------



## Princess (Nov 5, 2014)

I voted but...I just wanted to comment that,

I'm pretty sick of everyone painting democrats as the "good" guys and republicans as "evil" old rich people.
Politics IS NOT black and white. Just because someone is aligned with a certain party doesn't make them "good" or "bad". 
Get educated on each politician's agenda before voting. Ok that's all.


----------



## DoctorGallifrey (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm easily a Libertarian.


----------



## mishka (Nov 5, 2014)

republican on issues like immigration, money, buisness, healthcare, gun control, etc. 

Democrat on social issues (like abortion, gay marriage, etc) and environmental issues.

i'd say 80% republican tho.


----------



## RayOfHope (Nov 5, 2014)

...


----------



## mishka (Nov 5, 2014)

Princess said:


> I voted but...I just wanted to comment that,
> 
> I'm pretty sick of everyone painting democrats as the "good" guys and republicans as "evil" old rich people.
> Politics IS NOT black and white. Just because someone is aligned with a certain party doesn't make them "good" or "bad".
> Get educated on each politician's agenda before voting. Ok that's all.



bless this post


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

Here are the reasons why I voted four of them:

Republican - the name of the party I'm affiliated with, even as a millennial.

Conservative - most republicans are conservative.

Libertarian - people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

Tea Party - I do not support the Obama administration.


----------



## M O L K O (Nov 5, 2014)

Princess said:


> I voted but...I just wanted to comment that,
> 
> I'm pretty sick of everyone painting democrats as the "good" guys and republicans as "evil" old rich people.
> Politics IS NOT black and white. Just because someone is aligned with a certain party doesn't make them "good" or "bad".
> Get educated on each politician's agenda before voting. Ok that's all.



Agreed, in the end....they're all old rich people.


----------



## NewLeaf13 (Nov 5, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I'm Republican too.



I'm glad there are a lot others. I kinda felt that way because there are so many people crossing the border, and Obama is supporting amnesty. And I even accidentally switched someone from Republican to Democrat. I told him I was voting for Romney in our school election because Obama seemed to care about nothing but health insurance, when there's border-crossers, global warming, and unemployment. He told me he wanted a lot of good health, so he voted Obama. =_=. And 695 people voted Obama, and 97 voted Romney.


----------



## emmatheweirdo (Nov 5, 2014)

I voted Liberal on the poll because that's normally who I associate myself and vote for because they believe what I believe. However, I guess I would be more independent. I vote for who I agree with. Republican or Democrat alike. If a Republican came along that I agreed with more so than a Democrat, I'd vote for them. Regardless of party. I educate myself before I vote, using non-biased sources. I read things from both sides and from pure factual records. That's what democracy is.


----------



## Shirohibiki (Nov 5, 2014)

democrat/liberal, but i just have a bad feeling about this thread man. good luck haha


----------



## emmatheweirdo (Nov 5, 2014)

Shirohibiki said:


> democrat/liberal, but i just have a bad feeling about this thread man. good luck haha



Debate can be fun as long as it's civil. I should mention that in the OP c:


----------



## Zanessa (Nov 5, 2014)

I would vote Democrat only because I can't support a lot of Republican views, but if a Republican president is better than the Democratic one, I might just vote for that one. 
Y'know.. if I was desperate for change and was purely confident in the Democratic President being a total failure.


----------



## nard (Nov 5, 2014)

inb4 political riots break out in this thread



im democrat, im young so like, r.i.p me and politics


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

NewLeaf13 said:


> I'm glad there are a lot others. I kinda felt that way because there are so many people crossing the border, and Obama is supporting amnesty. And I even accidentally switched someone from Republican to Democrat. I told him I was voting for Romney in our school election because Obama seemed to care about nothing but health insurance, when there's border-crossers, global warming, and unemployment. He told me he wanted a lot of good health, so he voted Obama. =_=. And 695 people voted Obama, and 97 voted Romney.



A lot of people voted Obama over Romney. I guess that people don't like Romney.

The only reason why I voted Tea Party along with the other three conservative groups is because my bias against the left has gone too far. But if any of you vote Democrat, I wouldn't hate you for voting Democrat. I'm a friendly person in general, yet I am very conservative biased in my political life.


----------



## Gabby (Nov 5, 2014)

Definitely a democrat/liberal. Really wanted to vote in this recent election, but it turns out I wasn't registered  I thought I had!


----------



## Zulehan (Nov 5, 2014)

Social democratic. And I do not mean a socialist Democrat.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

Zulehan said:


> Social democratic. And I do not mean a socialist Democrat.



I know what you said. What you meant was the opposite of what you didn't mean.


----------



## Zanessa (Nov 5, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> A lot of people voted Obama over Romney. I guess that people don't like Romney.



Uh.. why wouldn't anyone like Romney?? How can we forget that he's got binders of women for us!!!! 
Sarcasm just in case you don't understand..

But back on topic, honestly, I don't think any of my views fit in a party now that I think about it..


----------



## Zulehan (Nov 5, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I know what you said. What you meant was the opposite of what you didn't mean.


Hi, Apple. Hope you are doing well.


----------



## DarkOnyx (Nov 5, 2014)

I don't know what any of them are tbh,not that into politics.Accidently voted...xD


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 5, 2014)

ZanessaGaily said:


> Uh.. why wouldn't anyone like Romney?? How can we forget that he's got binders of women for us!!!!



I hated what he did to Herman Cain. He dropped out of the 2012 election because of Romney. And he (Romney) said that the only people that matters where the small percentage of people who work. I don't have a job yet.


----------



## radical6 (Nov 5, 2014)

im a MLM  didnt expect it to be on the poll though
i dislike all the parties in the poll tbh. despite how many people think im a god damn liberal


----------



## Ashtot (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm other.


----------



## SpectralCat (Nov 5, 2014)

Canadian here! NDP party rules.


----------



## Nuclear Bingo (Nov 5, 2014)

strong conservative! Not quite a tea party member tho.


----------



## magsley (Nov 5, 2014)

I suppose I'm Libertarian/Center/Something.... I don't quite fit in Democrat or Republican, but I find myself definitely leaning left on social issues but right on financial/foreign policy issues. I just wish there wasn't such a huge divide in politics and the parties got along better. Its just a bunch of children arguing, really...


----------



## Gideon (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm millennial Republican, I consider myself a moderate conservative. I'm unconventional in my opinions on how to solve certain problems, but Republicans tend to represent me best. I do not rule out candidates based on party, rather I vote based on the person, their quality of character, and their political platform. I tend to dislike candidates who spend more time mudslinging than actually trying to convince me that their ideas for government will represent my own opinions enough. It's particularly a problem when candidates use misleading ads to try and get votes, which I saw heavily in this election by Democrats.

I think there are far too many misconceptions about the Republican party that Democrats push way too hard instead of trying to actually provide reasons for people to vote for them based on their agenda. Democrats accuse Republicans of being racist, anti-woman, etc. but none of it is actually true. The thing is, every Republican of non-white race is attacked by Democrats, take Tim Scott, an African-American Republican who was recently elected successfully in a southern state. Democrats accused him of being an "Uncle Tom." you'll notice that Democratic party candidates who are African-American do not receive this same treatment, and it is severely unfair treatment. As far as the fictional war one women... well it simply doesn't exist (the term war is used improperly anyways). There are more things that go along with that, and more fallacies created to misinform voters, I'll leave it at that.   

There are far too many things to discuss and if I was to continue further I would probably be dragged into a debate or something over my own opinions, which I'm not really interested in doing.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Considering it seems to be US poll... Other, or perhaps Democrat. Not a republican for sure.

Leaning towards the left anyways.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

I`m left wing oriented. But I haven`t voted in many years, since I lost faith in both sides of the political spectrum. 

I have no trust in politicians and the system. I still follow politics, I feel its important to stay in the loop of whats happening. But both national and international, news related to politics is quite depressing. 

I`m Dutch btw.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm guessing this is an American poll.. But I'm usually labour party. I don't particularly like any of the parties at the moment, I WAS a fan of liberal democrats but then they messed up with the university fees. 

However, I still vote, because not voting is wrong. People died for the vote. People in other countries are still dying to try and get the right to vote. Even if you hate all the parties, at least turn up to the voting place and ruin your vote, don't just not bother.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

I've been wondering this. Why is TBT mostly democratic/liberal? Is it because they like socialized medicine? Do they like more taxes and more government? That's why I'm Republican.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

While I live in the UK, I follow American politics pretty closely, and would vote Republican and sympathise with the Tea Party. In general, I'm conservative libertarian. I dont care if gays want to marry and I dont have anything to say regarding abortion.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> I've been wondering this. Why is TBT mostly democratic/liberal? Is it because they like socialized medicine? Do they like more taxes and more government? That's why I'm Republican.



Consider TBT's demographics. Then consider the demographics of your average progressive. Children and college students have some great ideas about how the world should be, then they realise when they start working and start paying taxes and have some real life experience, that maybe they were being a little idealist. There's the saying that if you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart, and if you're not conservative by the time you're 40, you have no sense.


----------



## Watchingthetreetops (Nov 6, 2014)

~
Liberal democratic.

There are certain policies that I don't agree with that my parties have put in place.  But generally, I am liberal democratic.  I don't really like defining myself to one political party because my needs will change over time, so my stance on things might as well.


----------



## Stevey Queen (Nov 6, 2014)

Democrat but I don't follow politics. I'm not really smart enough to understand what's happening or what's good for the country. I don't even vote

I do know either way- Democrat or Republican, people will be unhappy and the country will spiral downwards

We need to stop dividing ourselves and unite ourselves into one. We're all people in this world together.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> Consider TBT's demographics. Then consider the demographics of your average progressive. Children and college students have some great ideas about how the world should be, then they realise when they start working and start paying taxes and have some real life experience, that maybe they were being a little idealist. There's the saying that if you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart, and if you're not conservative by the time you're 40, you have no sense.



Well it's not just young adults that are liberal. It's the millennials that are. In fact, they're the first generation to support socialism over capitalism. But that's really close to a tie.


----------



## Colour Bandit (Nov 6, 2014)

It will be my first time voting next year in the UK (I missed out on the Euro Elections because I was a few months too young) and I'm voting for the Green party (Left Wing)
I agree with a lot of their values and policies, they care about the people 'at the bottom' not the old, white, wealthy men that most parties pander to, they want to maintain the NHS rather than privatise it (Which would negatively affect people like myself and my family who cannot afford to pay for healthcare), they actually want to scrap university fees, they want to stop the HS2, they want to return the railway services back to the public instead of being under the control of the- rather useless- private companies and they want to boost the minimum wage by 2020 to the same levels as the living wage, which is set at ?7.85 per hour for 2015.

A while ago though I would have voted UKIP and have been done with it, but after actually looking into it all they are really promising is independence and nothing really else and even then, again after looking into it, going independent would be a disaster as we'd lose trade with Europe but America and other countries would also cut trading with us as they want us to stay in the EU...


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

tbh I am not big on politics at all but I agree with all of those who have pretty much lost faith in 99.9% of politicians so 

essentially whichever party is the most lenient on lifestyle choices/race/sexuality I am probably going to side with because it feels like 50% of the people/parties within the UK are becoming very very xenophobic/generally racist but try to hide it ahah


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I've been wondering this. Why is TBT mostly democratic/liberal? Is it because they like socialized medicine? Do they like more taxes and more government? That's why I'm Republican.



Because the taxes help and they don't sell out everything. And I'd rather pay a little bit more to get proper care.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Colour Bandit said:


> It will be my first time voting next year in the UK (I missed out on the Euro Elections because I was a few months too young) and I'm voting for the Green party (Left Wing)
> I agree with a lot of their values and policies, they care about the people 'at the bottom' not the old, white, wealthy men that most parties pander to, they want to maintain the NHS rather than privatise it (Which would negatively affect people like myself and my family who cannot afford to pay for healthcare), they actually want to scrap university fees, they want to stop the HS2, they want to return the railway services back to the public instead of being under the control of the- rather useless- private companies and they want to boost the minimum wage by 2020 to the same levels as the living wage, which is set at ?7.85 per hour for 2015.



billion pound question here - how do they pay for it?


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

LoveMcQueen said:


> We need to stop dividing ourselves and unite ourselves into one. We're all people in this world together.



Quote of the century lets leave it here guys <3


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Princess Weeb said:


> Quote of the century lets leave it here guys <3



Nah there are always some people who want to prevent women's rights...Those pro-lifers...


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> However, I still vote, because not voting is wrong. People died for the vote. People in other countries are still dying to try and get the right to vote. Even if you hate all the parties, at least turn up to the voting place and ruin your vote, don't just not bother.



You could argue they died so you have a choice. The choice equals freedom. There are countries where you are forced to vote by law, in my humble opinion, thats not true liberty.



KarlaKGB said:


> Consider TBT's demographics. Then consider the demographics of your average progressive. Children and college students have some great ideas about how the world should be, then they realise when they start working and start paying taxes and have some real life experience, that maybe they were being a little idealist. There's the saying that if you're not a liberal by the time you're 20, you have no heart, and if you're not conservative by the time you're 40, you have no sense.



That saying is a fable serving the conservative agenda. In fact, a relatively high percentage of scientists vote left wing. It has nothing to do with naivity or lack of knowledge.

In your typical western society, there will be much more relatively wealthy people in comparison to poor people. People are selfish and vote for what they can use best. Obviously higher taxes isn`t one of the things they want.

Its kinda funny that organisations who study general happiness (based on wealth, environment, safety, etc) always rate the nations with relatively high taxes (Scandanavian countries mostly) in the Top 10. 

This is the top 5 from the list of 2013:
The report identifies the countries with the highest levels of happiness:
1.Denmark
2.Norway
3.Switzerland
4.Netherlands
5.Sweden

Link: 
http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/

I`ll leave it here, since sharing my opinion on especially American politics probably won`t be received very well.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Just saying I'm happy I don't live in El Salvador at the moment.


----------



## Colour Bandit (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> billion pound question here - how do they pay for it?


Pay for what? If you're going to ask a billion pound question you could be more specific...


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Colour Bandit said:


> Pay for what? If you're going to ask a billion pound question you could be more specific...



Tax money I suppose?


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> Nah there are always some people who want to prevent women's rights...Those pro-lifers...



*prevent everyone's rights
seriously though what is wrong with people jfc
>it is someone else's life, regardless of your religious or moral beliefs

If someone is doing something that you don't like, whether it is have an abortion/be in a same sex relationship/ be a different race to you (which they can't even help ffs)/ have different beliefs or literally change or identify as a different (or no) gender etc it is NONE of your business. It is not hurting you or anyone else, why do people spend so much of their time trying to tamper with other people's happiness ugHHH

ok sorry vent over


----------



## Colour Bandit (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> Tax money I suppose?


True, I mean I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if it means I'll still get my essentially free healthcare (Which if we didn't have it neither my mum or I would be alive right now) and other public services. It would help if they were more specific though, but I guess preventing the building of the HS2 would then provide money to go towards their other policies too.

But tbh I don't fully understand politics, I just go for whatever sounds right to me and the Green party is sounding quite right compared to the other parties... As long as we don't get another Tory government I'll be happy- Cameron is just useless.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Colour Bandit said:


> Pay for what? If you're going to ask a billion pound question you could be more specific...



I'll just quote you again


> I agree with a lot of their values and policies, they care about the people 'at the bottom' not the old, white, wealthy men that most parties pander to, they want to maintain the NHS rather than privatise it (Which would negatively affect people like myself and my family who cannot afford to pay for healthcare), they actually want to scrap university fees, they want to stop the HS2, they want to return the railway services back to the public instead of being under the control of the- rather useless- private companies and they want to boost the minimum wage by 2020 to the same levels as the living wage, which is set at ?7.85 per hour for 2015.



Let me do it again


> I agree with a lot of their values and policies, they care about the people 'at the bottom' not the old, white, wealthy men that most parties pander to, they want to *maintain the NHS rather than privatise it* (Which would negatively affect people like myself and my family who cannot afford to pay for healthcare), they actually want to *scrap university fees*, they want to stop the HS2, they want to *return the railway services back to the public* instead of being under the control of the- rather useless- private companies and they want to *boost the minimum wage* by 2020 to the same levels as the living wage, which is set at ?7.85 per hour for 2015.


It all sounds great on paper, but how does the government pay for it?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

I am pro-life and anti-socialized medicine. I don't know about disapproving of pro-choicers, but I'm discriminative towards socialized medicine supporters, especially against those who hate the opponents for opposing them.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Princess Weeb said:


> snip



Well I guess they are mostly basing it on whatever religion the country has adapted as their official. But yes it's incredibly stupid to prevent it. I mean it's the woman's decision and hers alone.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> I am pro-life and anti-socialized medicine. I don't know about disapproving of pro-choicers, but I'm discriminative towards socialized medicine supporters, especially against those who hate the opponents for opposing them.


May I ask why you are pro-life?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> May I ask why you are pro-life?



Since I was younger, I believed that it was considered murder to terminate a pregnancy. I am tolerable of them now, but only for a few exceptions. Abortions cannot be used as an excuse for getting away with having a child. If they don't want kids, they're not ready for kids, or they think having kids will interfere with having a career, why not consider adoptions?


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

I think the debate comes down to whether or not the foetus is a living human being, and whether the mother's rights outweigh the rights of the foetus.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> Well I guess they are mostly basing it on whatever religion the country has adapted as their official. But yes it's incredibly stupid to prevent it. I mean it's the woman's decision and hers alone.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> May I ask why you are pro-life?



because a lump of cells that are barely developed properly with 0 (or minimal - it really all depends on how far on in the pregnancy you are I suppose for all of that ahah) feelings/pain tolerance etc deserve to live in this already over populated world!!!!!!!!!!!!

any mental health issues the mother has or could develop from going through immense physical and emotional changes to have an unloved/unwanted child are stupid and she should stop being sad!!!!!!!!! ccc::

p.s that was pure sarcasm for those that can't seem to understand it


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> I think the debate comes down to whether or not the foetus is a living human being, and whether the mother's rights outweigh the rights of the foetus.



Well I'm not going to continue talking about abortions. It's a very touchy subject and should be left out of the debate. I have my full views on abortion in my 60th blog entry, along with a few other issues.


----------



## Colour Bandit (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> I'll just quote you again
> 
> 
> Let me do it again
> ...



Oh all that, well the NHS has been funded by the tax payers since it was created so the taxes do fine, the railway services used to be funded by the tax payers and then a Tory government decided that privatising it would be a good idea- even though now all the trains are crap and everyone hates Abellio Greater Anglia (The **** train company I have to deal with), the university fees used to be a lot cheaper and then the tories and Lib Dems allowed every Uni to set their fees to ?9,000 a year, even the **** universities. With the minimum wage, if you look it has been slowly increased over the years but not by enough, the costs of living are rising but the wages aren't matching it- hence a lot of families are falling into poverty. I'm not sure how it would be funded, but generally I would assume that if the people have more money they will be able to spend more on products which give the businesses back their money? I don't really know but I do know that currently the minimum wage is too low- I get paid ?5.60 per hour, I got my pay cheque today and working 7 hours a day for 4-6 days a week I only made ?379 last month, that wouldn't even pay for a months rent where I live... Either way I'm going to vote for the party which I agree with, which is the Green party but even I understand that it is too small a party- with only one MP in the Houses of Parliament, not some party which is just going to make life even harder for anyone who isn't wealthy.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

also (because this is political)

I have no problem with people that are pro life, and who hold certain beliefs about equally controversial subjects

it's when people vote against the freedom of someone else that doesn't affect them I have a serious problem :"))


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Since I was younger, I believed that it was considered murder to terminate a pregnancy. I am tolerable of them now, but only for a few exceptions. Abortions cannot be used as an excuse for getting away with having a child. If they don't want kids, they're not ready for kids, or they think having kids will interfere with having a career, why not consider adoptions?


 
Because it's too easy to get pregnant, not even if you snip off the tubes on a woman it's not 100%. Only staying off sex would prevent it. And I find that murder argument pretty wrong, for real. It's like people could decide for you and you don't have your own will. Plus this is abused way too much. 

While I can get people thinks used a bit too much(which I don't, be glad we have rights) forbidding it would lead to horrible consequences and I don't want to get back to a religious state where you have to pull the kid out with a hanger.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Princess Weeb said:


> also (because this is political)
> 
> I have no problem with people that are pro life, and who hold certain beliefs about equally controversial subjects
> 
> it's when people vote against the freedom of someone else that doesn't affect them I have a serious problem :"))


Problems is a lot of pro-lifers wants it to become the rule therefore I have a huge problem with it.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Princess Weeb said:


> because a lump of cells that are barely developed properly with 0 (or minimal - it really all depends on how far on in the pregnancy you are I suppose for all of that ahah) feelings/pain tolerance etc deserve to live in this already over populated world!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> any mental health issues the mother has or could develop from going through immense physical and emotional changes to have an unloved/unwanted child are stupid and she should stop being sad!!!!!!!!! ccc::
> 
> p.s that was pure sarcasm for those that can't seem to understand it



nice well developed grownup argument.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> nice well developed grownup argument.




did you read the last sentence or


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

I think she said she was sarcastic.

Also how is removing a lump of cell murder. It's like oh I can't treat your cancer it's cells it's murder.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

I am still against abortion no matter what, unless if it were for emergencies.

If I had a choice of either legalizing abortion with no limits or preventing Obama's radical socialist policies from getting repealed (including socialized medicine and school lunch ban), I would go with the former option. It's better to have less laws than more laws. Repealing anti-abortion laws subtracts laws, but socialized medicine will add more laws. I may find abortion murder, but if some women want to have an abortion to get away with having kids, that's fine. If a woman (or man) wants to socialize medicine, it's not fine. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm people. Failure to provide insurance as an employer isn't harmful, but racial discrimination is. Crime is harmful, but gay marriage isn't.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I am still against abortion no matter what, unless if it were for emergencies.
> 
> If I had a choice of either legalizing abortion with no limits or preventing Obama's radical socialist policies from getting repealed (including socialized medicine and school lunch ban), I would go with the former option. It's better to have less laws than more laws. Repealing anti-abortion laws subtracts laws, but socialized medicine will add more laws. I may find abortion murder, but if some women want to have an abortion to get away with having kids, that's fine. If a woman (or man) wants to socialize medicine, it's not fine. People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm people. Failure to provide insurance as an employer isn't harmful, but racial discrimination is. Crime is harmful, but gay marriage isn't.




^people I am fine with <3


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Princess Weeb said:


> did you read the last sentence or



Yes, you're trying to make a point by being flippant, facetious and sarcastic. Hardly a grownup way of debating.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I am still against abortion no matter what, unless if it were for emergencies.
> 
> People should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm people.



Fine. But then I think pro-life does hurt the woman in many ways but that's my business.

I have so much problem with this "freedom" and how people want it just because everything else is Stalinism to the people. Indirectly no one will get anything because hey I'm free I never get sick. I mean...blame yourself.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> Yes, you're trying to make a point by being flippant, facetious and sarcastic. Hardly a grownup way of debating.



I wasn't debating anyone at that point, or even now, though. 
Idk if you know this but we're on a forum for a kids game, so I have no idea how I am required to be mature, regardless. 
Even if I was, I've literally just made serious points at least slightly in your favour???


----------



## Ashtot (Nov 6, 2014)

Princess Weeb said:


> I wasn't debating anyone at that point, or even now, though.
> Idk if you know this but we're on a forum for a kids game, so I have no idea how I am required to be mature, regardless.
> Even if I was, I've literally just made serious points at least slightly in your favour???



Poor puppies can't be hurt but may as well shovel the humans out of the wombs because they serve no purpose in this overpopulated world ruined by men.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

Ashtot said:


> Poor puppies can't be hurt but may as well shovel the humans out of the wombs because they serve no purpose in this overpopulated world ruined by men.



sTOP OPPRESSING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


anyway yeah idk everyone should have equal rights there u go

goodbye friendos


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Not to derail the thread, but I hope this does not get into a bad argument like the villager wars on the AC forums.

Back on topic. I see that abortion is a controversy that will never be settled down to a compromise point. Same with gay marriage.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Not to derail the thread, but I hope this does not get into a bad argument like the villager wars on the AC forums.
> 
> Back on topic. I see that abortion is a controversy that will never be settled down to a compromise point. Same with gay marriage.



People are always going to have different opinions but it's getting better.
I suppose you could have said the same for racism pre-60s, though.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Not to derail the thread, but I hope this does not get into a bad argument like the villager wars on the AC forums.
> 
> Back on topic. I see that abortion is a controversy that will never be settled down to a compromise point. Same with gay marriage.


Well if the other wants to take away the rights just because you happen to be a woman.

For people against gays I'm not even gonna argue here


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

I think the NHS is one of the best things about the UK and I really hope it doesn't get privatised. I would NOT want to work in a healthcare system that leaves poorer people unable to get the treatment they need, or have people worrying to go to the doctor because of bills.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think the NHS is one of the best things about the UK and I really hope it doesn't get privatised. I would NOT want to work in a healthcare system that leaves poorer people unable to get the treatment they need, or have people worrying to go to the doctor because of bills.


This, or rich people getting all the help they can because they "happen" to be rich no matter how.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think the NHS is one of the best things about the UK and I really hope it doesn't get privatised. I would NOT want to work in a healthcare system that leaves poorer people unable to get the treatment they need, or have people worrying to go to the doctor because of bills.



Would you mind waiting in line for healthcare?


----------



## Dustmop (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> Well if the other wants to take away the rights just because you happen to be a woman.
> 
> For people against gays I'm not even gonna argue here



Thank you. This is one of those things I'll just never understand. Laws that restrict basic freedoms and civil rights.

_If it doesn't physically affect you, or obviously endanger the public, why should you care what other people do with their lives and their bodies?_

Live and let live.


Though I'm not entirely sure where I fall on the political map these days.. little things just make me feel like I'm stuck in the middle. I'm for civil rights, but I'm also for things most liberals don't agree with, like bringing back The Chair?.
At the very least, stop wasting our sterile medical supplies on dead people.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Would you mind waiting in line for healthcare?



If it's handled and it gives me a better chance because I'm poor yes. It's not fair for anyone to go before in line just because they money. That's because I'm against making stuff private because then they know how to handle the thing in a bad way and the pay-to-be-cared for make it so only rich people can afford it anyways because both concurrence and they win on it.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

I still oppose universal healthcare (also known as CommuCare). It's better privatized than socialized. And long waiting lines for healthcare is a major reason why I'm against CommuCare (portmanteau of communist and healthcare). Everybody needs healthcare. Doctors should not have a maximum wage. If no maximum wage appears, they will do as much operations as they can.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Dustmop said:


> Thank you. This is one of those things I'll just never understand. Laws that restrict basic freedoms and civil rights.
> 
> _If it doesn't physically affect you, or obviously endanger the public, why should you care what other people do with their lives and their bodies?_
> 
> ...



Yeah. If it was the other way around people would care much more because they are men and they can do what they want.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> Everybody needs healthcare. .


And still you are for privatization. I sense a problem here.


----------



## Princess Weeb (Nov 6, 2014)

If I'm going to be honest, at least at my GP the doctors are absolutely useless. I'd certainly not pay for healthcare to be turned away constantly by people that are too lazy to even bother looking into problems I have. 

Maybe it's just my area but they are ridiculously stingy, have repeatedly misdiagnosed me/people around me or dismissed me/people around me while overlooking serious medical conditions. 


(I'm not suggesting all doctors are like this, but certainly 99% of the ones I've come into contact with are, though)


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Would you mind waiting in line for healthcare?



No, if it's fair and everyone else is waiting in line too. Why should someone get quicker treatment if they have money, even though there might be poorer people who are even more ill? Plus, there's guidelines for these sort of things, in the NHS at least. Depending on your referral, you have to be seen within a certain number of weeks.

Also I'm not quite sure what you're saying about maximum wage, but I think it's good they have a maximum wage, so that a) they don't get ridiculous amounts of money and b) they don't have an incentive to rip people off and do unnecessary operations


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> No, if it's fair and everyone else is waiting in line too. Why should someone get quicker treatment if they have money, even though there might be poorer people who are even more ill? Plus, there's guidelines for these sort of things, in the NHS at least. Depending on your referral, you have to be seen within a certain number of weeks.
> 
> Also I'm not quite sure what you're saying about maximum wage, but I think it's good they have a maximum wage, so that a) they don't get ridiculous amounts of money and b) they don't have an incentive to rip people off and do unnecessary operations



Yeah why should anyone get before just because they have money, that's even more unfair than waiting in line.

Yeah the problem here is they get too little money actually.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> No, if it's fair and everyone else is waiting in line too. Why should someone get quicker treatment if they have money, even though there might be poorer people who are even more ill?



u mean private healthcare, right?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> No, if it's fair and everyone else is waiting in line too. Why should someone get quicker treatment if they have money, even though there might be poorer people who are even more ill? Plus, there's guidelines for these sort of things, in the NHS at least. Depending on your referral, you have to be seen within a certain number of weeks.
> 
> Also I'm not quite sure what you're saying about maximum wage, but I think it's good they have a maximum wage, so that a) they don't get ridiculous amounts of money and b) they don't have an incentive to rip people off and do unnecessary operations



The maximum wages are the reason why healthcare waiting lines are long. With a maximum wage, they would work up to it, then stop when they achieve it. They try to do as little as possible, which is why waiting lines are so long.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> The maximum wages are the reason why healthcare waiting lines are long. With a maximum wage, they would work up to it, then stop when they achieve it. They try to do as little as possible, which is why waiting lines are so long.



That is NOT true, that's not how wages work. So do you think doctors just get to I don't know, October or something and then just stop working for the year? Of course not, that it ridiculous. If a doctor does no work they won't get paid, they'll get fired. Doctors are very busy and most do as much as they can to treat people, as do the nurses and physios and all the staff.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> That is NOT true, that's not how wages work. So do you think doctors just get to I don't know, October or something and then just stop working for the year? Of course not, that it ridiculous. If a doctor does no work they won't get paid, they'll get fired. Doctors are very busy and most do as much as they can to treat people, as do the nurses and physios and all the staff.



I'm talking per day, not per year or per month.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I'm talking per day, not per year or per month.



You obviously have no idea how it works. Most doctors, at least at the hospital I work at, are in all day or night. They're not paid by the patient. They have a yearly salary. They work until all their patients are tended to, or until their shift ends and in that case the patients are handed over to the next shift of doctors.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> You obviously have no idea how it works. Most doctors, at least at the hospital I work at, are in all day or night. They're not paid by the patient. They have a yearly salary. They work until all their patients are tended to, or until their shift ends and in that case the patients are handed over to the next shift of doctors.



Here in the US, they are paid by patient. They don't operate on people all the time just to be rich. They operate on a lot because everybody needs healthcare.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Here in the US, they are paid by patient. They don't operate on people all the time just to be rich. They operate on a lot because everybody needs healthcare.



That makes no sense? You're saying everyone needs healthcare but your society makes people PAY for their healthcare. Doctors in your country are paid by patient, so that means they're probably more likely to operate more so that they will be rich...Here, the doctors are usually paid the same no matter what, so they do their best for the patient. Doctors are much less well off here.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

I have an honest question. Do you really want me to support socialized medicine? Are you really sure that I should support socialized medicine?


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think the NHS is one of the best things about the UK and I really hope it doesn't get privatised. I would NOT want to work in a healthcare system that leaves poorer people unable to get the treatment they need, or have people worrying to go to the doctor because of bills.



The countries in the world where people are happiest all have affordable healthcare. Even when it gets privatised for some part, the government will always keep a close watch on how companies are running it. With the greying of the population, governments are looking for cheaper ways to provide it, so they try to outsource it for a part or cut costs where they can. They don`t Always do this on the right spots, so it often has to get corrected later. This whole trial and error based method has given us the Healthcare we share today. Its unthinkable for it to go back beyond recognition. People would never accept the level of care to drop far below the level they are accustomed to.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I have an honest question. Do you really want me to support socialized medicine? Are you really sure that I should support socialized medicine?



I'm not really sure if you're asking this sarcastically but yes you should because your argument against it so far hasn't been strong. Socialised medicine benefits all and makes for a much fairer society. Free healthcare should be a human right.


----------



## The Hidden Owl (Nov 6, 2014)

Beleated_Media said:


> EVERYONE NEEDS TO SHUT UP ABOUT NEW WARS AND USE THEIR MONEY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
> 
> Really though, everyone is fearing that new wars will happen. No one seems to care about Global Warming, their has been evidence that this is really happening. So ya, I'm rooting for anyone who supports global warming.


I don't want to start anything but...

I would like some evidence please.

(shield)


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I'm not really sure if you're asking this sarcastically but yes you should because your argument against it so far hasn't been strong. Socialised medicine benefits all and makes for a much fairer society. Free healthcare should be a human right.



I'm sorry, but I will never support socialized medicine. If I had a choice to vote to repeal Obamacare, I will vote to repeal Obamacare. Socialized medicine is a form of socialism, and I will never support socialism no matter what the cause is.


----------



## Dustmop (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> That makes no sense? You're saying everyone needs healthcare but your society makes people PAY for their healthcare. Doctors in your country are paid by patient, so that means they're probably more likely to operate more so that they will be rich...Here, the doctors are usually paid the same no matter what, so they do their best for the patient. Doctors are much less well off here.



Everybody needs (or, at least, deserves) indoor plumbing.

...You still have to pay a plumber.


----------



## The Hidden Owl (Nov 6, 2014)

Another thing...

Here is the thing with free handouts (from Obama).

When homeless/really poor people receive them, they are going to keep being homeless. Why work when I get free money? I can keep living for free. With my cellphone! If you are homeless and you would rather have a smartphone than work, you got some serious problems.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I'm sorry, but I will never support socialized medicine. If I had a choice to vote to repeal Obamacare, I will vote to repeal Obamacare. Socialized medicine is a form of socialism, and I will never support socialism no matter what the cause is.



Agree to disagree, but I just don't understand your problem with it. Apart from waiting times, you haven't made any arguments against it - why do you hate it so much?


----------



## The Hidden Owl (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> Agree to disagree, but I just don't understand your problem with it. Apart from waiting times, you haven't made any arguments against it - why do you hate it so much?


The thing is, it's putting our nation in deeper debt. We give out free health care to millions of people, when really we are spending the nation's money and becoming more in debt. That's why we need a Republican president to cut back on spending.

(shield again)


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

The Hidden Owl said:


> Another thing...
> 
> Here is the thing with free handouts (from Obama).
> 
> When homeless/really poor people receive them, they are going to keep being homeless. Why work when I get free money? I can keep living for free. With my cellphone! If you are homeless and you would rather have a smartphone than work, you got some serious problems.



That is an extremely narrow-minded way of looking at it. Yeah, i'm SURE they'd love to carry on living on the streets in the cold with no friends or family or a home or possessions, just because they get a tiny bit of money to get by on. I'm sure most homeless people would rather have an opportunity to work and get their lives together again, than have a smartphone, but unfortunately its rather hard to tie down a job when you have no home, probably no place to shower, not many clothes... Just think about it.


----------



## Dustmop (Nov 6, 2014)

The Hidden Owl said:


> The thing is, it's putting our nation in deeper debt. We give out free health care to millions of people, when really we are spending the nation's money and becoming more in debt. That's why we need a Republican president to cut back on spending.
> 
> (shield again)



+1.

That money doesn't just appear out of nowhere. When you're not paying for your own doctor visits, you're essentially paying for everyone else's with that wonderful tax hike to cover the costs of "free" healthcare.

Nothing. Is free.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Dustmop said:


> Everybody needs (or, at least, deserves) indoor plumbing.
> 
> ...You still have to pay a plumber.



Sorting out your plumbing is rather different to healthcare. Obviously many things in life you have to pay for, but I don't think healthcare should be one of them. If I find a lump and am worried I have cancer, I don't want to delay going to the doctor because I'm worried about the cost.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dustmop said:


> +1.
> 
> That money doesn't just appear out of nowhere. When you're not paying for your own doctor visits, you're essentially paying for everyone else's with that wonderful tax hike to cover the costs of "free" healthcare.
> 
> Nothing. Is free.



You may say that, but the truth is that as it is at the moment and in recent years, the USA has been very inefficient in health spending. About 17% of USA's GDP is spent on healthcare, compared to about 10% in the UK. So basically, ours is more efficient economically. (and a lot more humane)


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

The Hidden Owl said:


> The thing is, it's putting our nation in deeper debt. We give out free health care to millions of people, when really we are spending the nation's money and becoming more in debt. That's why we need a Republican president to cut back on spending.
> 
> (shield again)



Check this list on spendings on healthcare per capita in 2010 and 2011 and check who tops the list (before Obamacare)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

Healthcare actually costs less when people are more likely to go to a doctor early, because they aren`t terrified they can`t pay for the upcoming bill. You can prevent many bigger (and therefore more expensive) treatments by catching illnesses early.


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 6, 2014)

False promises.


Anyway, I'm British so I don't have any care for political matters over the pond. Although I do think the world would be much better off if we de-evolved; returning to the dark ages when there were no governments or politics. When it was every man for himself.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Jarrad said:


> False promises.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'm British so I don't have any care for political matters over the pond. Although I do think the world would be much better off if we de-evolved; returning to the dark ages when there were no governments or politics. When it was every man for himself.



Yes, the dark ages were great for your common man


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> I have an honest question. Do you really want me to support socialized medicine? Are you really sure that I should support socialized medicine?



Yes if it makes us somewhat equal and handed well in the end.

- - - Post Merge - - -



The Hidden Owl said:


> The thing is, it's putting our nation in deeper debt. We give out free health care to millions of people, when really we are spending the nation's money and becoming more in debt. That's why we need a Republican president to cut back on spending.
> 
> (shield again)


Well if people weren't so damn clinging to their freedom and would accept it it wouldn't be too much spending. Be glad someone is offering that thing to you.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

Jun said:


> Yes if it makes us somewhat equal and handed well in the end.



Speaking of equal, will everyone be paying an equal amount to support the health system too?


----------



## Eldin (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm about as left-wing as you can get without hitting communism

I really don't want to get into my views on every little thing because I don't want to be attacked by conservatives so that's all I'm gonna say

but that's in an ideal world. in the real world people take advantage of social programs to the point where they cost too much, and the government will always be flawed because people are flawed. so honestly when it comes to politics I don't feel that we can ever really "win" so I don't get too worked up about it. so I guess my point is that although I have left-wing views, I don't necessarily believe that the parties who believe the same would be successful. because I don't believe any government can be considered successful to everybody.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> Speaking of equal, will everyone be paying an equal amount to support the health system too?


Hypothetical question I see. 
But no that wouldn't exactly be doable unless all the professions got the same amount of salary. But yeah if you earn more, pay more.


----------



## MishMeesh (Nov 6, 2014)

Since this seems to be on the topic of healthcare, let me post a couple of things for comparison.






In comparison, Canada:






My dad broke his arm skiing. He went to the hospital. After a few, he left the hospital with his arm set and in a cast, with no cost to him. He also got the cast removed with no cost.

One of my best friends is American. She told me about how her friend didn't want to go get stitches for a split chin because he didn't have the cash to pay for it. ....seriously?

Honestly, the countries that cover necessary medical expenses for all of their citizens, whether through socialized healthcare like the UK or through single-payer systems like Canada, kind of wonder why the U.S. is slacking. It seems almost medieval to me to leave citizens without insurance simply if they can't afford it.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

MishMeesh said:
			
		

> snip



I think they can afford it, they just don't want to because they think it's forced.


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> Yes, the dark ages were great for your common man



There were no "common" or "uncommon" men and women. Everybody was equal, the only hierarchy that existed then was measured in brute strength.


----------



## Gideon (Nov 6, 2014)

I really didn't want to get involved in debating, but after reading some of these comments I'm going to toss my hat into this thread again. 

I am absolutely against abortion in cases that are not of necessity. There is a thing called *responsibility* (this word carries over into a lot of different things.) It is one thing to seek an abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, and related issues. With the improvements to healthcare, the risk to mother's life is very rare, and the amount of abortions performed for women with these special cases, rather than out of convenience is very large (if you do not believe me you can search it yourself, but I assure you this is an honest fact). Abortion IS murder, one may claim "it's just a bundle of cells" if they wish, but it's still what is to become a human being. As such, if one kills the "bundle of cells," then the abortionist as destroyed the life of a human being. Abortion is NOT the right a woman, if you are convinced this is true, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because a yet to be born child is inside the woman's body, does not make the child her own body, an unborn child relies on the mother to survive, yes; however, they are genetically different beings in a basic explanation. It amazes me how people are so willing to state that it cannot be helped if someone is homosexual, nor can they help their skin color, appearance, etc. but willingly ignore that an unborn human being cannot help that they must develop inside their mother before being born (and to a mother willing to kill her own offspring to boot). Part of this is responsibility, as I said before. Unfortunately things just don't work out as ideally as people seem to try and theorize. This responsibility lies on both the man and the woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, use preventative measures. Some men are guilty of causing greater hardships on women because they leave them to be single mothers, and to deal with the problems. Should a woman feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of motherhood, then they should seek assistance (and it's out there, plenty of it), or in other cases put the child up for adoption (which is far more humane than killing a child just because the mother doesn't desire responsibility, at the very least this gives the child a fairer chance at life.) This leads to the massive issue that people don't like to face, like it or not, everyone has *responsibility*. For actions, there are consequences, everyone wants to do whatever they want, but nobody wants to face the problems that arise from their activities (even if it affects other people). These are very selfish times we life in, which is my opinion, but whatever.

There are plenty of forms of welfare/aid for those who are in need in the United States, the problem is those who chose to abuse it. The very problem with social welfare systems is that there are a noticeable amount of people out there who do harm to it. This puts a strain on the government, and on the people who actually need the welfare. There are people who are able, but do not work, and rely on welfare money to support living expenses. The people who actually need the welfare money, and the taxpayers who fund it suffer from this. Efforts need to be made to close these loopholes, successfully preventing sheer laziness from harming others. I am all for aiding those who need it, I am not for just tossing away money that could go to greater use, simply because someone wants to manipulate the system to do what they want, and have no responsibility.

As far as minimum wage goes, that is _exactly_ what it is, MINIMUM wage. Minimum wage is that for a reason, it is the minimum one can receive for working. If you do not want to be paid that low, then search for jobs that pay better (or create your own job i.e. self-employment). And before anyone tries to jump on me about that, yes I realize some people cannot simply find a better job with ease. Minimum wage jobs are jobs, not careers, they are not meant to be a lifetime way of earning money. They are short term ways to make money, careers are what we need to have people striving for. The people who succeed are the people willing to put forth the effort and time to do so. As mentioned before, there is help out there to those who seek it, just because you do not come from wealth does not mean you cannot find your own (in fact many, many success stories are by those who are poor and become wealthy through their efforts). Let's take an example, say that there are three people of 18 years of age who are setting out on the world. One decides he doesn't like school, so he "doesn't wanna go to college," and finds employment at a retail store for minimum wage. The second does not seek to attend school for long, but seeks to follow his interests, and heads to vocational school to become a welder after a couple years of training, he does and finds himself in a stable career with pay that can support himself and his family. The final seeks to become a fully educated person, and eventually receives a doctoral/professional degree after years of dedicated hard work educating himself, he has solid career that supports himself and his family, and then some. For this, we will assume all of these people were from working class families, with equal availability to all benefits. We live in a land of opportunity, some people have it easier than others, but there are still ways that society has essentially balanced the weights. There are all sorts of ways that people can achieve greater things for themselves, but they have to actually put forth the hardships to achieve it. We are very fortunate to have the opportunities that we do (at least in the U.S.), that other people do not have access to, even on a minimal level. If you do not want to receive the minimum, then you shouldn't put forth the minimum in the first place. In addition, in order to balance the cost of raising minimum wage to much higher amounts, businesses will be required to either raise prices, reduce employees, or both. I don't think some people realize that the technology to replace employees is here already, self-checkout machines exist already, but they are not completely replacing as many employees as they could. If push comes to shove, larger companies are going to simply cut costs by eliminating jobs such as cashier that could be handled by a machine, replacing them with a more cost-effective solution. At the present these companies do not see a need to do so, and likely don't intend to outright toss employees out the door, unless they become economically problematic. Small businesses will not be so fortunate, as the cost to pay employees more affects them in a much greater way than it would a huge corporation. Profit margins would go downward assuredly, which may lead to further unemployment increase, and the elimination of smaller businesses (which are also a sort of competition, less businesses competition is a problem). 

In the long run, things can better be handled to suit the needs of people at the state level, rather than the local level. Nationalized programs and such are much more difficult to manage, many time more expensive, flawed, and they assume that the needs of certain states are the same as others. What Alaska may deem necessary may not match Florida's needs. I could go on and on, there's simply too much to discuss.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Oh wow I just...no. 

There is a just a certain level to those pro-lifers I suppose. If it's not the woman who decides then is it right for someone else to do it for her, like she doesn't know a thing? This "life" doesn't give a certain poop whether you keep it or not, only those religious rulers do. And the man who does it because he thinks he have powers.

For the responsibility part, it's not just that easy and I said it before it's very easy getting pregnant unless you are very, very, very cautious or just stay off it at all. And it'd way too easy for a man to do it on women, especially in countries where you can get 50 years for making an abortion which makes it worse if it's rape.

And I feel like those people who is pro-life, do you want to end the treating for diseases based on the lives of cells like cancer etc. It's per se as dangerous as carrying a child if your body can't handle it.


----------



## Zanessa (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> If they don't want kids, they're not ready for kids, or they think having kids will interfere with having a career, why not consider adoptions?



Please keep in mind that there are already many children in need of a home. There are already _so many_ in that system... some people don't want to do adoptions because of that.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

ZanessaGaily said:


> Please keep in mind that there are already many children in need of a home. There are already _so many_ in that system... some people don't want to do adoptions because of that.



Amen. And it's pretty hard to get adoptions as well depending on your country of residence and the country you want to adopt from as well, depending on their laws for fertile couples, if you are gay or not etc.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

ZanessaGaily said:


> Please keep in mind that there are already many children in need of a home. There are already _so many_ in that system... some people don't want to do adoptions because of that.



Also people are forgetting just how traumatic and stressful it might be just to go through the pregnancy, even if you do give the child up at the end. It's a whole 9 months, your body and hormones change, you might be stigmatised by other people, for example if you're still at school...


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 6, 2014)

Well the debates didn't take long at all. Right on schedule. Has there been name-calling as well, or have we not reached that level of argumentation yet?


----------



## Gideon (Nov 6, 2014)

Noiru said:


> Oh wow I just...no.
> 
> There is a just a certain level to those pro-lifers I suppose. If it's not the woman who decides then is it right for someone else to do it for her, like she doesn't know a thing? This "life" doesn't give a certain poop whether you keep it or not, only those religious rulers do. And the man who does it because he thinks he have powers.



The essential problem here is that you are trying to purport women as some sort of victim, being prevented of some essential right as if they are being treated as mindless slaves to men. This is absolutely false. You seem to be under the impression that a woman should simply be able to do as she pleases. This is not a matter of a woman being allowed to do something that should be her own right, such as voting, that is an essential right in democracy. The right to end someone else's life is not the right of a woman. A woman does not gain the right to kill her own child simply because the child relies on her. This is not some religious issue, this is a matter of protecting the right of those who cannot yet defend their own lives. I simply cannot align myself with the idea of supporting the murder of a human being out of convenience. If a depressed person was being told to kill themselves by someone else, would you be fine with knowing that you could saved the depressed persons life by taking measures to stop them? Or would you simply let things run it's course? If you are a human being of true care for life, then I would assume you would want to stop the what would essentially be murder committed against the depressed person by the verbal attacker, and convince the depressed person not to commit suicide. In the same light, why would you willingly campaign for someone to end the life of another, simply because they cannot do so alone. This is not a matter of man vs. woman, or woman's rights vs. religion, it is none of this at all, and to try and fabricate it into something so extreme is preposterous. Why should anyone have the right to end someone else's life because of a perceived burden?


----------



## #1 Senpai (Nov 6, 2014)

um, idk..

but woah..the debate's heated like the sun man.


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 6, 2014)

#1 Senpai said:


> um, idk..
> 
> but woah..the debate's heated like the sun man.



It's like this in every single political thread ever made. They always devolve into debates solely on a few specific, heated topics, like abortion, which of course never get resolved because it's such a split issue. Honestly why political debate is so boring- no one is ever educated and they're always the same topics. People realize there's more to politics than three whole issues, right?


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

Gideon said:


> snip



They are victims in the case that they actually have to carry the child. Also I don't exactly consider it a life that can makes it own decision and whatever it depends on does not matter here. What is the right, some woman being forced to carry something she doesn't want nor agrees on?

The depressed person is most likely a grown one so you cannot really debate it in this discussion to make it fair. And for those you can actually get help and since it doesn't has to do with a child growing inside it's not murder if you try to help someone depressed. Two different matters and the fact you brought it into the thing at all makes me just shake my head.

And well in those countries where you can't do legal abortions yes they are "slaves" as you put it.


----------



## #1 Senpai (Nov 6, 2014)

MisterEnigma said:


> It's like this in every single political thread ever made. They always devolve into debates solely on a few specific, heated topics, like abortion, which of course never get resolved because it's such a split issue. Honestly why political debate is so boring- no one is ever educated and they're always the same topics. People realize there's more to politics than three whole issues, right?



Right.  

I find that political debates are boring as heck, since I don't even know what they say most of the time tbh


----------



## Alice (Nov 6, 2014)

#1 Senpai said:


> Right.
> 
> I find that political debates are boring as heck, since I don't even know what they say most of the time tbh



I think they can be moderately interesting, but pro-life discussions are ALWAYS the same. The same sides never bring up anything interesting or new to the table. It's the same argument every single time. I kind of like how Gideon is making it out like it would be the woman's choice get an abortion during every instance.


----------



## Eldin (Nov 6, 2014)

This thread basically went from being all about healthcare to being all about abortion in like... a page. 

I'm curious, Gideon (I hope you don't mind me asking this - if so I don't mind if you don't want to answer), what about forseen problems with the baby? If you are told your child may not survive the birth, or will only live for a few years afterwards, time which will probably be spent undergoing many painful surgeries? Or even more controversial, severe mental impairment due to chromosomal or genetic problems?

Is it wrong to want an abortion to save the child from what will be a painful/difficult/probably short life?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what you've said or trying to attack you, I'm just genuinely curious. I just feel that this is another hard decision parents have to make. Especially since in most cases now we are talking later term. And since we have the technology now to determine certain things about a fetus beforehand, do we use this technology to determine whether to terminate a pregnancy or not, or do you see it more as just for preparation (if you do believe the baby should be kept)?

~

As for debating, I find it interesting to hear from both sides of an argument. I feel it only makes me learn more about the issue as a whole. But I'm usually not much of a debater myself because I think it's hard for people to stay civil and I'd rather stay out of it because I tend to avoid conflict.


----------



## Sanaki (Nov 6, 2014)

Independent I guess.

You kids have fun


----------



## Fantasy15 (Nov 6, 2014)

I'd probably classify as independent, although more conservative than liberal in some areas.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

So Obama wrote to Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei four times, and never got a response. Meanwhile, he's only met with Mitch McConnell twice in five years. And people say it was the Republicans who didn't try hard enough to work with Obama. Except when asked if the president could have done more to work with Republicans over the past years, Josh Earnest says, "probably."


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

Are all pro-lifers standardly against the dead penalty?
I`m seriously curious about that. Kinda seems a no-brainer. 

Just to throw in my opinion on abortion since I haven`t shared it yet, I`m pro choice. I`m not entirely sure if it should be purely the choice of the woman (what about the rights of the father?), but I can definetly understand why in pro-choice nations it is arranged like that. 
I don`t like the way people portrait this subject of abortion. As if the average case involves a woman aborting a baby for convenience sake. Life isn`t that black and white. There are many circumstances that can occur, ranging widely in severity for the health of the baby and/or the mother/family. 

Lastly, all I desire in this subject is that every doctor has a right to decline doing the procedure.

Personally (as a man I must add), I wouldn`t opt for abortion unless maybe a situation of rape or severe healthissues for the baby and mother were at play. Obviously I would in the end respect the wishes of the mother regardless, because in the end, she has the biggest claim to the decision.


----------



## oath2order (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> So Obama wrote to Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei four times, and never got a response. Meanwhile, he's only met with Mitch McConnell twice in five years. And people say it was the Republicans who didn't try hard enough to work with Obama. Except when asked if the president could have done more to work with Republicans over the past years, Josh Earnest says, "probably."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEvZzYkqCKs

All I need to particularly know about Mitch.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 6, 2014)

ah another example of a classic oath political debate post - a snappy one-liner that has no content.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 6, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> (what about the rights of the father?), but I can definetly understand why in pro-choice nations it is arranged like that.
> 
> 
> Lastly, all I desire in this subject is that every doctor has a right to decline doing the procedure.
> ...



- First in most cases the man probably doesn't want to keep it unless it's mutual and even if he did it's probably selfish reasons because he wants to have sex and whoop a baby let's keep it!!! I mean your sperm makes it happen...

- Those doctors are just so wrong. Abortions and such are part of the education and if you want to decline that you work in wrong professions.

- Well considering you are a man you don't need to carry it for 9 months regardless of your health so it's a bit vague to come with that.


----------



## oath2order (Nov 6, 2014)

KarlaKGB said:


> ah another example of a classic oath political debate post - a snappy one-liner that has no content.



Watch the video, it's all I need to know about Mitch, specifically his statement about him refusing to work with Obama.


----------



## Trundle (Nov 6, 2014)

Eldin said:


> This thread basically went from being all about healthcare to being all about abortion in like... a page.
> 
> I'm curious, Gideon (I hope you don't mind me asking this - if so I don't mind if you don't want to answer), what about forseen problems with the baby? If you are told your child may not survive the birth, or will only live for a few years afterwards, time which will probably be spent undergoing many painful surgeries? Or even more controversial, severe mental impairment due to chromosomal or genetic problems?
> 
> ...



You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

Noiru said:


> - First in most cases the man probably doesn't want to keep it unless it's mutual and even if he did it's probably selfish reasons because he wants to have sex and whoop a baby let's keep it!!! I mean your sperm makes it happen...



"In most cases" doesn`t really cover the fathers-to-be who think differently on the matter. You read my post so obviously in many cases I would be one of them. I don`t understand how it would be selfish? 



> - Those doctors are just so wrong. Abortions and such are part of the education and if you want to decline that you work in wrong professions.



It can be a very traumatising experience for a doctor. Its always possible that in a certain profession you morally detest certain aspects of the job, even though you thrive at the most part. Like a security agent refusing to torture suspects for example. Not to mention its also in the family having the abortion best interest to have the abortion performed by a doctor who is also mentally able to do just that.  



> - Well considering you are a man you don't need to carry it for 9 months regardless of your health so it's a bit vague to come with that.


 
Do you mean that my partner possibly dying while giving birth is of no concern to me as a father? Like I said, I would follow her choice, but ofcourse I would have an opinion on it. What if it posed both risks for mother and child? (I did say mother or/and child) I understand I have no say in it that would hold up in court, but hell, I still would be part of the family. Men are more then spermdonors....


----------



## SolarInferno (Nov 6, 2014)

I guess this poll is more aimed at the US audience looking at what's being discussed here. British politics is a lot less focused on issues like abortion, and is more often motivated by the class of person that the party focuses on, so it seems to cause a lot less arguments and debates than American politics (unless you happen to openly support BNP). Personally though I'm in favour of Labour since they generally support the working class rather than the rich.


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 6, 2014)

Gideon said:


> I really didn't want to get involved in debating, but after reading some of these comments I'm going to toss my hat into this thread again.
> 
> I am absolutely against abortion in cases that are not of necessity. There is a thing called *responsibility* (this word carries over into a lot of different things.) It is one thing to seek an abortion in the case of a threat to the mother's life, or in cases of rape, and related issues. With the improvements to healthcare, the risk to mother's life is very rare, and the amount of abortions performed for women with these special cases, rather than out of convenience is very large (if you do not believe me you can search it yourself, but I assure you this is an honest fact). Abortion IS murder, one may claim "it's just a bundle of cells" if they wish, but it's still what is to become a human being. As such, if one kills the "bundle of cells," then the abortionist as destroyed the life of a human being. Abortion is NOT the right a woman, if you are convinced this is true, then you are sorely mistaken. Just because a yet to be born child is inside the woman's body, does not make the child her own body, an unborn child relies on the mother to survive, yes; however, they are genetically different beings in a basic explanation. It amazes me how people are so willing to state that it cannot be helped if someone is homosexual, nor can they help their skin color, appearance, etc. but willingly ignore that an unborn human being cannot help that they must develop inside their mother before being born (and to a mother willing to kill her own offspring to boot). Part of this is responsibility, as I said before. Unfortunately things just don't work out as ideally as people seem to try and theorize. This responsibility lies on both the man and the woman, if you don't want to get pregnant, use preventative measures. Some men are guilty of causing greater hardships on women because they leave them to be single mothers, and to deal with the problems. Should a woman feel unable to carry out the responsibilities of motherhood, then they should seek assistance (and it's out there, plenty of it), or in other cases put the child up for adoption (which is far more humane than killing a child just because the mother doesn't desire responsibility, at the very least this gives the child a fairer chance at life.) This leads to the massive issue that people don't like to face, like it or not, everyone has *responsibility*. For actions, there are consequences, everyone wants to do whatever they want, but nobody wants to face the problems that arise from their activities (even if it affects other people). These are very selfish times we life in, which is my opinion, but whatever.
> 
> ...



how do you have the energy to do this

- - - Post Merge - - -



Trundle said:


> You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.



Yes. A huge waste.
The world is crumbling, can't you see? There are too many humans on this planet, our resources are under immense pressure and it's only going to get worse. I'm against wasting precious resources to bring a being into this world whose life will not span for very long. Those resources wasted could have been used for the greater good of the future.

Not to mention the emotional pressure that this being's loved ones will feel once he/she departs from this world. 

*I'm sure I come across as very mean and inhumane for saying this, but I don't care what anybody has to think. When it comes to making decisions, I always look at what will benefit us, not burden us.*


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

Trundle said:


> You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.



but a short life of suffering? what about babies that are born just to be on ventilators and can't see, feel, hear anything, and only live a few weeks


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> but a short life of suffering? what about babies that are born just to be on ventilators and can't see, feel, hear anything, and only live a few weeks



this

people that cling onto their damaged young with hopes that they'll live, when the reality is that they're beyond terminal is incredibly selfish.

pain is a feeling that conquers love


----------



## Eldin (Nov 6, 2014)

Trundle said:


> You're saying a short life is a wasted one? If I were to die today my life wouldn't have been any more worth aborting at birth than someone who we know is going to die young.



No, I'm saying a short and _painful_ life is a wasted one. It's cruel. Everybody talks about choice. The child has no choice in that situation.


----------



## Yuki Nagato (Nov 6, 2014)

UKIP definitely, so conservative/independent.


----------



## Trundle (Nov 6, 2014)

Jarrad said:


> how do you have the energy to do this
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Hello, I'd like a source for the world crumbling any more than it already has been. Not to mention the world's population is going to continue going up anyway. If we're running out of resources then why does it matter who gets to use them? You're looking at the world as if you're some magical demigod trying to control the outflow of resources. From your attitude towards this I'm assuming you're the average American. I thought you left the forum anyway. Why are you here?


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 6, 2014)

All of these "what if's" scenarios are absurd points of discussion, you could literally supply any reason to do or not to do something, and sadly, that does not for a political discussion make. WHAT IF THIS, WHAT IF THAT. Yeah, what if the sun explodes? Then none of these debates will have actually mattered in the long-run.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 6, 2014)

MisterEnigma said:


> All of these "what if's" scenarios are absurd points of discussion, you could literally supply any reason to do or not to do something, and sadly, that does not for a political discussion make. WHAT IF THIS, WHAT IF THAT. Yeah, what if the sun explodes? Then none of these debates will have actually mattered in the long-run.



exploring 'what ifs' in politics is perfectly reasonable as long as they are vaguely likely situations. You HAVE to think about what would happen in different scenarios, and plan ahead


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 6, 2014)

Annachie said:


> exploring 'what ifs' in politics is perfectly reasonable as long as they are vaguely likely situations. You HAVE to think about what would happen in different scenarios, and plan ahead



They're pointless to discuss, there will never be an end to any discussion this way, it's a constant battle of scenarios, which is a waste of time, effort, and conversation. It's the same thing for every abortion issue I've seen- A states a stance, B states their stance, A comes back with different scenarios, B comes back with different reasons for each scenario. Neither of them see eye to eye or educate each other in any way, it's all based on situation and opinion. Who cares? Does it change anyone's life? No. It's the same recycled garbage in every debate, arguing about what other people should do with their lives and choices.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

Thanks to what if`s, we probably learned that the sun could explode. 
Questions give answers and answers give more questions. Hello progress anyone?


----------



## MisterEnigma (Nov 6, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> Thanks to what if`s, we probably learned that the sun could explode.
> Questions give answers and answers give more questions. Hello progress anyone?



Hello endless loops of pointless pandering in an Animal Crossing forum. We have risen to pinnacles no other forum could ever hope to copy or achieve with such progressive debate that I've never before seen.


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 6, 2014)

Trundle said:


> Hello, I'd like a source for the world crumbling any more than it already has been. Not to mention the world's population is going to continue going up anyway. If we're running out of resources then why does it matter who gets to use them? You're looking at the world as if you're some magical demigod trying to control the outflow of resources. From your attitude towards this I'm assuming you're the average American. I thought you left the forum anyway. Why are you here?



Did my comment touch a nerve? What you've said in your comment is enough to prove my point. The world's population is going up, regardless of what will happen. That's why there _needs_ to be something in place that will monitor it, which may be in the form of not providing treatment for these beings that are going to have short painful lives. I am a demigod, didn't you know? In all seriousness, I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I strongly believe that we're a generation of beings that are incredibly greedy and relentless when it comes to the preservation of the human race. We take, we do not give. 

Your assumption is hideously incorrect. I'm British, as previously stated. You know of me? I'm flattered. Why are you here, Trundle?


----------



## Shirohibiki (Nov 6, 2014)

is this really still going


----------



## Trundle (Nov 6, 2014)

Jarrad said:


> Did my comment touch a nerve? What you've said in your comment is enough to prove my point. The world's population is going up, regardless of what will happen. That's why there _needs_ to be something in place that will monitor it, which may be in the form of not providing treatment for these beings that are going to have short painful lives. I am a demigod, didn't you know? In all seriousness, I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I strongly believe that we're a generation of beings that are incredibly greedy and relentless when it comes to the preservation of the human race. We take, we do not give.
> 
> Your assumption is hideously incorrect. I'm British, as previously stated. You know of me? I'm flattered. Why are you here, Trundle?



So getting rid of the small percentage of short lives that will waste resources is going to solve all our resource problems? "Monitoring" it isn't going to prevent us from running out.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 6, 2014)

MisterEnigma said:


> Hello endless loops of pointless pandering in an Animal Crossing forum. We have risen to pinnacles no other forum could ever hope to copy or achieve with such progressive debate that I've never before seen.



I agree that for truly informed people, this debate will give little new information to consider. However, I do believe there are plenty of people who can learn more from this debate. Just like a person can learn from voicing their opinions and having people disagree and voice a counterargument. 
I don`t believe it to be pointless therefore. I find it interesting to see how younger people think about this topic, also people from abroad, fellow TBT-ers I read stuff daily from, etc. 
Ofcourse this doesn`t give a true picture for an entire demographic or even paint a picture of a person, but I enjoy it none the less. Not just viewpoints, but especially the manner you bring them across say a lot about a person. 
As long as its a respectful debate and no one is forced to read or particpate, whats the harm?

We can`t all endlessly name our fave tune or villager either right?  (Talking about endless).


----------



## Jaebeommie (Nov 6, 2014)

Not Republican. That's for sure. 
California is a Democratic state but I live in an area where it's primarily Republicans, and it's annoying as heck because the Republicans here are so...I don't know. Difficult.


----------



## Sanaki (Nov 6, 2014)

ZanessaGaily is the president

its official


----------



## f11 (Nov 6, 2014)

Apple2012 said:


> Yep. We got red pizzas and blue pizzas. Red pizzas are spicy, but blue pizzas taste like peppermint.
> 
> Anyway, we should go back on topic. Politics is fine to talk about as long as you don't do the following:
> 
> ...


wot I like spicy


----------



## emmatheweirdo (Nov 6, 2014)

I'm actually going to post my political opinions since I haven't yet cx

So I'm a free thinker. Always have been. I'm not one for people being forced to live their lives based on how others think they should. It's no surprise that I'm against strict laws for abortion, gay marriage, and marijuana. Honestly, my stance on it is to let people do what ever the frick they want. I mean, dude. Is it gonna hurt you if your lesbian neighbors get married? Answer: NO. Is it gonna hurt you if some kid next door is smoking pot? Answer, once again, is no. And to be honest, it won't hurt you if someone has an abortion either. Now, don't get me wrong with that last one. Of course "killing babies" is wrong, but honestly that's not what Democrats stand for. I know many people who think that and it's sickening. Like what human being on Earth unless they were complete psychos would WANT to do that? 50% of the nation are not psychos ok. I just believe that it is the woman's right to choose. I believe that if we ban all abortion, women are still going to do it. It'll be done incorrectly and will be very harmful. It'll do more harm than good. It's all the women's decision so we shouldn't force women to do what she wants to do. You don't see congress trying to make laws about "male part enhancers" (Keepin' it kid friendly as possible) You all know what I mean. The men in congress think they get to decided what's right and wrong for women and I honestly think that's frickin' stupid. I mean, heck, some guys don't even know or want to know the stuff that goes on with women. How dare they think they can say what women can and can't do... Here's where my feminist side comes out... Men should have no say in the debate on women's health. Period. No pun intended. Put yourself in the place of the woman. How would you like it if some women came along and told you what you could and couldn't do with your body, men? I bet you wouldn't like it. I think the put yourself in the place of the other person applies in many instances. For example, the debate on gay marriage. How would you like it if someone told you that you couldn't get married? What if being homosexual was the norm and you were the outcast? You wouldn't like it. Something I'm seriously against, though is hate. That is why I refuse to eat at Chick-fil-a. The company donates money to organizations that are actual hate groups. Leaders of those groups have come out and said that they believe that gays and lesbians should be killed or imprisoned just for being gay. That is NOT something I want my money going towards. I'm a strong believer in love is love. And that whole "ruining the sanctity of marriage" crap? First of all, besides the Bible where does it say anything about the sanctity of marriage? and so what if the Bible says something about it? Was this nation based off of the Bible? NO. Tell me where in the constitution does it talk about the sanctity of marriage? And before people start going off on me about "Christian nation" stuff because people tell me that all the time, it's not true. Yeah, the constitution it says we are "endowed by our creator" but what does that mean? God? To Christians, yeah. To Atheists? No. It could be their parents or some giant muffin in the sky, idk. It doesn't matter. This country was not created with one religion in mind. Religious freedom. That's the whole reason the early settlers even came here. If you look at a bunch of things being debated right now and look at the constitution, I don't understand why there's even a debate. I really don't understand why there's a debate over weed. Like really? Who cares what other people do? It's their life. Sure, make it illegal to drive high I guess, just like driving drunk. But alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana is. Sure, if you smoke enough of it, it'll kill your brain cells. Big woop. If someone wants to do that, let them. It's their life. It being illegal is the stupidest thing on Earth to me. Take a look at the prohibition of alcohol. People still drank. Weed is illegal. People still smoke it. It's not really doing anything good making it illegal. Just making it easier for people to put harmful chemicals into it. If it was regulated, not only would it be safer, but it'd help the economy. Just take a look at Colorado. That's pretty much where I stand when it comes to social issues. Economic issues, I'm not as passionate about tbh. I just believe that raising the minimum wage is a HUGE benefit for the nation. Tax cuts on the wealthy are not. I thought that was obvious. Also, while I will agree that there are a lot of government programs, they're very necessary in today's economy. I've lived on food stamps. If it wasn't for that program, I could have starved to death almost by now, who knows. I know we'd be homeless without my dad's disability and social security checks. Welfare isn't about people living on the government. I'm sure there are plenty of people who do, but getting rid of those problems will hurt so many families and people. The people who do just rely on it and are "lazy" will find other methods, it's what they do. But the families that have both parents working 2 or 3 full time jobs and can barely pay their bills or feed their kids will suffer. My family is living on the edge of poverty and without welfare programs, we could be homeless at any moment. I need the Democrats to win for the sake of keeping programs like food stamps. I vote Democrat because I always feel like they believe what I believe. If a republican came around that I agreed 100% with, yeah, I'd vote for him. I'm not for one specific party in general just because the name. I study, I do my research and learn about each candidate. One thing I'll never do is put democracy to waste.

I doubt anyone will even read this, but if you do, just know I love you okay. Even if you are a Republican  Feel free to debate with me, I love debating c:


----------



## Keyblade (Nov 6, 2014)

NewLeaf13 said:


> Republican, definitely. I feel like one of the only Republicans in Texas, even though we're getting another republican governor.



texas is primarily republicans, silly. 
i'm from texas, too.
it's just that most young people are democrats haha.


----------



## Princess (Nov 7, 2014)

what a ****ing disaster


----------



## M O L K O (Nov 7, 2014)

Jarrad said:


> Did my comment touch a nerve? What you've said in your comment is enough to prove my point. The world's population is going up, regardless of what will happen. That's why there _needs_ to be something in place that will monitor it, which may be in the form of not providing treatment for these beings that are going to have short painful lives. I am a demigod, didn't you know? In all seriousness, I'm just giving you my personal opinion. I strongly believe that we're a generation of beings that are incredibly greedy and relentless when it comes to the preservation of the human race. We take, we do not give.
> 
> Your assumption is hideously incorrect. I'm British, as previously stated. You know of me? I'm flattered. Why are you here, Trundle?



I read this and suddenly I grew a neck beard a fedora pls help im scared

anyway heres what I am

- if don't involve u directly or indirectly, mind your business
- see step 1


----------



## KarlaKGB (Nov 7, 2014)

Hey Jarrad, if you want to go back to the dark ages so much, feel free to join Islamic State


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:
			
		

> snip


- Then why should everyone and their dog care for how they want it. Seeing as easily as it is to get pregnant it's the woman's decision unless you are a stable couple of course then you could probably have a debate unless she made clear from the start she doesn't want a child.


- Invalid arguments here, I don't see spies torture as a valid reason to compare it to abortion, it's a whole different matter but alright. And yes, that's why you shouldn't work in those parts of the doctor profession if you can't do it. 



Well if you would decline her to remove it, yes then it's none of your business since then you would probably want to keep it too much.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 7, 2014)

I think every pro-lifer should be obligated to adopt a child, seeing as they're so insistent on bringing unwanted babies into the world


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think every pro-lifer should be obligated to adopt a child, seeing as they're so insistent on bringing unwanted babies into the world



Good idea, but then they probably have 14 children of their own already so I don't know...


----------



## Zanessa (Nov 7, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think every pro-lifer should be obligated to adopt a child, seeing as they're so insistent on bringing unwanted babies into the world



Especially the men.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ZanessaGaily said:


> Especially the men.



Yeah... And we will see how 'powerful' their little sausage is.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

Noiru said:


> - Then why should everyone and their dog care for how they want it. Seeing as easily as it is to get pregnant it's the woman's decision unless you are a stable couple of course then you could probably have a debate unless she made clear from the start she doesn't want a child.
> - Invalid arguments here, I don't see spies torture as a valid reason to compare it to abortion, it's a whole different matter but alright. And yes, that's why you shouldn't work in those parts of the doctor profession if you can't do it.
> Well if you would decline her to remove it, yes then it's none of your business since then you would probably want to keep it too much.



When there is no stable relationship, there is no reason to discuss the fathers position in the decision regardless if you think he should have a say or not. Therefore my point was directed at situations where the father is involved.

The comparison served to show that in many professions there are parts of the job some people refuse to do or have strong objections because of ethical reasons for example. Relieving them from certain procedures doesn't only help those professionals but also the involved patients. I disagree with you that
when you are a doctor specialized in this area, you are obligated to also do abortions. But yeah, I can understand you feel different about it. I just think it would be a waste of a otherwise good doctor.

Just to be clear, I would leave the decision by my partner, where it should be. I merely stated that as a father and memberof the family, that when there are circumstances around the health of the baby or the mother, I would deserve to be heard in my opinion. Probably in a good relationship this would happen anyways, but sometimes i'm just surprised at how easily the position of the father is disregarded.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> snip



Well... To be honest it depends how biased the 'father' is in the case. If they are oh I always wanted a child and doesn't think then he has no use in the saying. If both want it, yes then there room for a discussion but if the mother doesn't in the end... Move on for heaven's sake.

Well there is a difference relieving someone from that and from another work. Just saying. And for the waste why did they even want to become a doctor if they know they won't be able to do it(no matter for what reasons). It's like.. become something else then.

You have a good point but most often here the father tends to be very active in their opinions and taking use of the mother way too much therefore it's much much more of a problem.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

Noiru said:


> snip.



I agree with you that when thats the opinion of the father, it wouldn`t be very productive to discuss the matter as adults, even though the woman is present every step of the way, meaning that she is able to use birthcontrol methods. 
At the same time though, there are women using pregnancy as a tool to force their man to stay with them. As horrible and wrong as this is, this shouldn`t take anything away from the basic right for the woman to decide.. I guess I want to say is that you can`t base legislation on those abusing the system. If you did that, you would have to take rights away from all people, whom in majority consist of responsible adults.

There is a huge difference in delivering babies, perforning all sorts of surgery in this area and abortion. Most doctors will have no objections to abortion based on their scientific background and opinion that when abortion is performed within a certain amount of weeks it isn't considered ending a life. However, there can also be religious doctors for example whose beliefs forbid them to do such things. This doesnt mean they can`t be great doctors. Its only a small part from their profession. Obviously when your belief restricts you, you shouldnt work in an abortion clinic, but why should the same count for a hospital? Good doctors are not easy to find.

Its a tough subject though. Its personal values and professional obligation.
Like doctors having a right to decline helping in executions in America or being involved in euthanasia cases in Holland. 

I think some tasks within various professions are just to controversial to demand from the entire group of professionals. 
But its difficult to define or draw a line between what you can and can`t expect. Atleast it is for me. I feel their should be room for personal values. Especially when there is no danger of the task at hand being done properly. 
Its the flaw in my way of thinking. Its all open for debate. I believe the society in which you live decides what can be considered controversial enough. In the end in a democracy the population safeguard the body of thought. But this is very offtopic.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:
			
		

> snip


Nothing is safe apart from abstaining sex completely, so you can't really blame responsibility too much here. When it's used to force someone to stay that is indeed a different matter, but shouldn't be reason for taking away abortion rights still.

Well to blame it on religion or some biased personal views shouldn't make you refuse. It is a profession and educated matter so either yes you should stay away from operating completely or be able to tell your private life apart from what you do at work. And if you are so concerned and stuck in your beliefs that it makes you do or don't stuff. Don't go refusing when they could have hired someone who would do that. And yes I can agree it can be hard sometime to find good doctors but if everyone refuses what is the use at all?


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

Thats just a thing we disagree on. I can't see private and professional life seperated on such controversial issues. I don't look at it in terms of blaming, but  in terms of justifiable moral objections. In that sense I'm lucky to live in a country where the law supports this vision. 

At the same time I can definetly respect your opinion. There is something to be said for demanding a professional attitude from professionals. When that is clear for everyone when they start theirstudies, no one can claim they didn't see it coming, even though laws and therefore procedures a professional must execute can change. Most discussions do not gravitate around right and wrong, but just different sides of a spectrum whereboth opinions are validated and grounded on a solid foundation.

In that sense cultural differences are applaudable and only lead to improvements when it comes to standard of life in the long run.


----------



## Jarrad (Nov 7, 2014)

Trundle said:


> So getting rid of the small percentage of short lives that will waste resources is going to solve all our resource problems? "Monitoring" it isn't going to prevent us from running out.



I didn't say that. I said that there needs to be something in place to monitor it, which _may_ be in the form of what I mentioned previously. 

Of course it won't prevent us from running out of resources, but it would sure make a difference and possibly bring more serious methods of "monitoring" into light.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> At the same time I can definetly respect your opinion. There is something to be said for demanding a professional attitude from professionals. When that is clear for everyone when they start theirstudies, no one can claim they didn't see it coming, even though laws and therefore procedures a professional must execute can change. Most discussions do not gravitate around right and wrong, but just different sides of a spectrum whereboth opinions are validated and grounded on a solid foundation.
> 
> In that sense cultural differences are applaudable and only lead to improvements when it comes to standard of life in the long run.


Well to be honest it's not as difficult as most of these people think. But then again, if they want to be a doctor so bad they could always work with old people or children instead I suppose.

Well yes, as long as we don't get those extreme pro-lifers/religious people that makes it law and base it on a "fantasy" book. I am an atheist myself and when people makes law based on (mainly) Catholicism beliefs and makes it valid for everyone, just..no. Sure, go ahead and have different opinions but don't make it law when it kill more people than it helps.

And even more when they put girls who makes abortions in those countries into prison for 50 years because of "murder"(when you are very much not ready for a pregnancy at 12) just.. what are into these people's heads?


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

I agree that church and state should be seperate. Its a crime to sentence any child for such long time. But there is crazy stuff happening all over the world.

Kinda sad there isn't a global consensus of right and wrong. But yeah, yay diversity.....
When people abroad complain about Dutch laws, all Diutchies think "well, **** 'em", including me. 
So who am I to object to Nigerian laws for example and expect change? They will think the exact same thing..... 

All you can protect or stand up for is democracy, what they do with it is up to them. We learned that the hard way in recent years. If they democratically decide abortion is against the law, who the hell am I to object. 

Its tough. Especially women in many countries are victim of huge hypocracy in cases of rape, adultery and as you pointed out abortion. It bothers me as a human being. Its almost impossible to change it. 

This is more a personal issue of mine, but I can`t stand how we completely dismiss the culture and values of many, especially middle eastern societies. Yet at the same time, we get all pissed off when they do the exact same thing to us. Its not that I disagree with the Western way of thinking, but it still gives no claim to global rightiousness. In many cases we should mind our own business, as hard as that may be.
But thats just a personal rant.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> I agree that church and state should be seperate. Its a crime to sentence any child for such long time. But there is crazy stuff happening all over the world.
> 
> 
> All you can protect or stand up for is democracy, what they do with it is up to them. We learned that the hard way in recent years. If they democratically decide abortion is against the law, who the hell am I to object.
> ...


Yes they should. Especially since hardly everyone agrees with one's belief. 

For that matter, you are the hell to actually object and in whatever way you can try and object inhuman rights. And I was pointing out to countries in Central/South America where Catholicism is the dominating religion and they live way stricter than your average Christian in the west.

Well I think we do them some kind of favor in caring, I doubt most of these people want stupid laws shoving onto them how to dictate their sexual lives. But heck those people making the laws probably want to go back to a pre-women rights era where they could say whatever they want and everyone had to follow it(which still is the case in most places). 

And the dismissal is probably because of their adapting their version of the Qur'an (if we are talking about the Middle East) even if it doesn't say anything wrong about women in the original. While they may rant on women going topless they should focus on their own problems first and while I can agree both sides should mind their own business to an extent it's hard when they do it in the name of religion and take away the other gender's rights.


----------



## Envelin (Nov 7, 2014)

Beleated_Media said:


> EVERYONE NEEDS TO SHUT UP ABOUT NEW WARS AND USE THEIR MONEY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
> 
> Really though, everyone is fearing that new wars will happen. No one seems to care about Global Warming, their has been evidence that this is really happening. So ya, I'm rooting for anyone who supports global warming.



Although I think global warming is a myth, you're so right about the belief that war is imminent
I think people should be worrying more about pollution and water usage as well as CO2 emissions.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

Thats why you have to protect the democracy, to give the people a voice and make sure it is heard by those who reign. 

Its difficult though, I spoke regularly with a girl from Saudi Arabia, who told me some really horrible stories, going much, much further then women not allowed to go topless. Seriously insane things happen over there. She told me for example about a fire in a school where only girls studied. Because only girls were there, they weren`t forced to  wear headscarfs or whatever you call them in English. When a fire broke out, firemen were denied access in the building, because the girls were "exposed." Thats insanity.

Yet at the same time, this girl told me her sisters and mother agreed with Saudi laws as they were. You can argue they might be brainwashed, even though they all have spend time in Spain, Holland and America. Fact is many people agree with the strict laws laid down by (extremist) interpretations of the Quran. In the really old days, the Bible wss also supported by the masses, even though it demanded barbaric measures against for example adulterers, thieves and homosexuals. 

I will always support the people who fall victim to violations of human rights. Whether its about immigrants coming to Holland and being mistreated or a 16 year old getting the dead penalty in America because he was trialed as an adult. 
I believe though outrage benefits the regimes that lead by brute force and injustice. It gives them someone else to point a finger at. Someone to distinguish as "them", opposed to "we." We should do more to show another way of life, not attacking other lifestyles, but perfecting ours and show an alternative. That way we can maybe change the "we", now consisting of regimes and suppressed populations. Because you are forcing those populations to reflect inwards, because you give their leaders no longer an enemy to distract from the true problem. 

We will never solve it though. Western countries use this crap to monger fear and force through their capitalistic agenda. 
They don`t desire worldpeace. I know this makes me sound like Im insanely paranoid, but just watch the news. Check the airtime given to various news subjects and then look up the true issues at hand in your country. A scared population asks no questions.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against religions. Im not religious myself, but people have every right to follow the religion they want. I have a problem with extremism.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:


> snip


See, that's why I have probably with religion as much as capitalism being bad; simply because they are making people brainwashed to extreme. Opium to the people in both ways. Does not justify anything however, and that fire example you brought makes me even more annoyed that people use these "laws" to revoke rights of either gender. I don't see it as a culture if you go as far as saying you can't go inside in a fatal situation. Call me narrow-minded here but I see it as extremely difficult to justify any of this just because you happen to be a man(or a woman).

Well nowadays those religious people are the one that are heard. I know people who believes in God that are "normal". I mean heck if you want to believe Jesus is made of potatoes go ahead but don't shuffle your twisted sight on women onto me, thank you.


----------



## tamagotchi (Nov 7, 2014)

Politic discussion, for me, is rather boring, and they - most of the time - lead to arguments [ Of course that's expected, since it is a debate, but there's always the people who go too far. ].

That being said I don't particularly care for politics.


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

Noiru said:


> See, that's why I have probably with religion as much as capitalism being bad; simply because they are making people brainwashed to extreme. Opium to the people in both ways. Does not justify anything however, and that fire example you brought makes me even more annoyed that people use these "laws" to revoke rights of either gender. I don't see it as a culture if you go as far as saying you can't go inside in a fatal situation. Call me narrow-minded here but I see it as extremely difficult to justify any of this just because you happen to be a man(or a woman).



I don`t think you are narowminded at all. Just like you, for me its very hard to see any justice in some of the ways women are treated in other cultures. 
However, what I tried to bring across is that what seems obvious to others, is completely incomprehensible for others. I`m pretty sure Hillary Clinton as possible president of America baffles a lot of people worldwide. Just like euthanasia & legalized prostitution laws in Holland will baffle them. They look at it the same way as we do I think, just from the different side of the coin. Obviously we completely disagree with them, but its just as obvious for them to disagree with us. 

That still doesn`t mean we should accept women being mistreated there, but it does mean we should try and look at things from their perspective. Thats the only way you can find a way to change anything. They will never, ever forfait their values for threats, that will only strengthen their faith that what they do is just. Just like the other way around. 

This is a bit naive, but its a nice thought, it was once stated by a Dutch comedian:
What if America used all that money they spend on bombs and wars, lets say 10 billion (I made the number up, its irrelevant and I saw it a long time ago) and spend it doing good. Use 2 million to vaccinate children against malaria in africa, use 2 billion fighting world hunger, use another 2 billion educating people everywhere and use the last 4 billion for the environment, so we all will benefit. Who would still wish harm upon America and the Western world. 

I know its naive as hell and he said it before the rise of the Islamic State. But still. I truly believe education is the best weapon against terrorism, not bombs. I`m btw very aware of the Dutch support in the agressive way of dealing with the threat of terrorism, so I don`t blame it on America alone.  
Education is pretty much the best weapon against everything. Bigotry, racism, hunger, wars, etc. Weapons might bring dynamite, education brings kryptonite. Ask Superman whats stronger. 
But things that go BOOM obviously are way cooler.


----------



## Alienfish (Nov 7, 2014)

ThomasNLD said:
			
		

> snip


Well I guess how open-minded you are on these things and how educated you actually are on the subjects. But since most people are pretty conservative on the matters they just look at it as "wrong". On the other hands, it doesn't exactly justify them to forbid them, even if they actually know how 'dangerous' it is for the people which is also wrong to do.

Correct. But then it's also both parts' fault for either a) attacking them for it or b) don't educate so it's wrong either way in terms of overly religious leaders.


----------



## Nuclear Bingo (Nov 7, 2014)

Annachie said:


> I think every pro-lifer should be obligated to adopt a child, seeing as they're so insistent on bringing unwanted babies into the world



Challenge accepted!


----------



## M O L K O (Nov 7, 2014)

Noiru said:


> Good idea, but then they probably have 14 children of their own already so I don't know...



omfg.

--

anyway one of these days I'll write out my political views in full. 
Though, in a political sense, I still don't understand why gay marriage is a big deal?
Wouldn't that just be more couples to have pay for a marriage license??


_Don't mind me I'm just admiring ThomasNLD & Noiru discussion._


----------



## ThomasNLD (Nov 7, 2014)

I don't know what its like in other countries, but in Holland marriage gives tax benefits and I believe also some kind of favourable financial bonus for rent or mortgagerates. Its definetly financially beneficial. I'm not married so I would have to look it up to pinpoint it exactly. 

Divorcing is a different matter ofcourse.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Nov 8, 2014)

Here's another political view of mine:

I support the freedom of speech (including talking about pizza on TBT).


----------



## oath2order (Nov 8, 2014)

Ban pizza threads 2k14.

I still support freedom of speech


----------



## Envy (Nov 8, 2014)

I side most closely with Liberals/Democrats. Mainly, because of being much more progressively socially (thus being more pro-LGBT and feminism), and also because of separation of church and state. I just can't even remotely begin to align myself with any such party that opposes those.


----------



## Brackets (Nov 8, 2014)

I'm just worried how UKIP is creeping up in the UK. In my view, they are quite frankly racist. The unfortunate thing is, the main other political parties in the UK aren't too favourable either. Myself, and a lot of the public, just can't relate with them, and they don't relate with us. I really don't know where I stand at the moment and I don't know how I'm going to vote. I voted Green party last time, even though I don't believe in a lot of their policies, because I just couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the others. I'm thinking maybe Labour, even though I kindof hate Ed Miliband..


----------

