Oade

Not necessarily. However, looking at wold history, aspects are debatable. Are religious views not worth sharing and encouraging if one is religious? Or are religious folks only allowed to practice and talk about their religion from 8-12 on Saturday's and Sundays? Why/how is it that religious views should be excluded, even to the extent of self-censorship by religious people, from shaping society, but other philosophical views are valid?

Riiight. Not being charged for abortion (or murder, or assault, or anything) after killing an unborn child, is appropriate here. You make a good point, lol. If this man had killed two adults, he'd be charged with two murders.... This man killed one adult, and one unborn child (at an age children can live outside of the womb no less, not that it really matters), but is then only charged for the crimes against the adult. This is good, justified, and the charges fit the crime, how?

My point is that criminals should be held accountable for their crimes, and pretending that killing that child wasn't actually ending a the life of that child is insane. The idea that simply being charged for some variation of assault after intentionally ending the life of another is mind boggling.

I see your point, but that's a pretty dull way of washing your hands of responsibility. If not for your own religious or moral choices, why would/do you oppose any crime at all, and why is it ok to "force" those personal views on criminals? If not for your own morals and religious views, what part of you is it that causes you to oppose murder of a mature adult? Or theft, or bribery? Or are you simply against criminals being held accountable? If your unwilling to interject your own personal choices and religious morals "on anyone else", then what society are you helping to shape? Should we not teach 3rd graders that it's bad to steal? If the kkk started hanging jews tomorrow, would you have any religious or moral objections that would require any forcible punishment?

Yeah that's great. What do you think this father would be charged for if the mother had miraculously lived, yet the child had died? Attempted murder? Suppose he (or the next guy) hadn't used a weapon at all, instead just punched and kicked the mother in the stomach. Not attempted murder of the mother. Yet, the un-person dies. -- Best case scenario, something like that is only going to carry an offense along the lines of aggravated assault. Worst case scenario? It's a father's right to choose, I suppose.

Here's one result of taking the word "murder" out of it. Man I hope this un-person gets an appropriate funeral or memorial service. https://www.dailywire.com/news/43273/man-charged-killing-pregnant-woman-wont-be-charged-ashe-schow

No I'm not for that, which is precisely why I roll my eyes at a single payer health system. It's not free, and it will only add fuel to the fire.

What's dystopian about using a GoFund for insulin? If I needed help paying for insulin, or a new kidney, or anything else, I would ask my family and neighbors first and foremost. In the modern world, GoFundMe patrons are neighbors imo. That is hardly an excuse for a government run health system. To make that leap is fairly radical.

Are you talking about Kavanaugh? If so, there is a noticeable difference between the two issues..... Kavanaugh was accused of rape, a crime. Northam is being accused of nothing. It may be deplorable, but it is not illegal to dress in poor taste for a costume party. And like with Kavanaugh, I'm not saying this should be ignored in regards to Northam's next re-election campaign or job search. I know he wouldn't get my vote, but my vote/opinion isn't the only one that matters. And beyond that, what good does it serve for him to step down this week? Exactly what justice is being served when no crime was committed (30 years ago)? Anyone who voted for or defended Hillary does have that opinion, they may just be naive enough to not realize it, but what difference does that make at this point anyway? Anyone who's ever enjoyed a Jimmy Kimmel joke holds that opinion. Anyone who's ever watched a Notre Dame football game with Chip Kelly as the coach holds that opinion. I could go on to varying degrees of social offenses..... Those folks have all committed equal or far worse offenses, yet are still media darlings, or at the very least, not trashed by the media and social mob. Why Northam in regards to blackface, but not Kimmel? Why blackface, rather than covering up for your husbands predation of young interns? Why a poor taste in costume, but not actions that lead to a kids death, like with Kelly and Clinton? Criticize Northam all you want, but if the new standard is that people who've made a dumb joke or worn a deplorable costume need to be fired or step-down, then we're screwed as a society.

I'd just like to say that I was quite stressed when I composed my last post. I was busy arm wrestling a T-Rex while sky-diving blindfolded when I wrote that, so I think just a little credit is due. And all things considered, I probably could have taken it up a notch and done all of that over hot lava or a laser show. I'm Ron Burgundy. Dilly Dilly! Dilly Dally??

If he feels compelled to resign, I guess he should, but it seems like a shortsighted rule of thumb for people to lose their jobs because of stupid photos/actions in their hs/college years. We all know of people who've done equally as bad or worse, and rightfully so, not been prosecuted by the social mob beyond verbal/written criticisms. And in regards to public figures, not re-elected in some cases. People within the UNL athletic department have done worse, and been given a second chance within weeks, not sure why or what has changed culturally in recent years to not give people another chance after years of maturing. As long as he's not acting that way anymore or making light of his previous-immaturity, whats the point or rush in taking his job away from him this week? Not that I "want" him to resign (I honestly don't care about the gov of Virginia as a general rule), but if he does, it's just odd to me that he would be pressured into resigning because of a dumb costume party 30 years ago, rather than being pressured to resign after just days ago he was essentially advocating for post-birth abortions (murder) in some cases..... Of course I'm over reacting, I'm taking it out of context. That sort of talk is nothing to worry about. Certainly not worth a guys job (it's truly not imo). Not from the party that wants single-payer heath care. Charlie Guard could never happen here in the USA, we'll simply be better at health care than the Brits. Our government would never override the parents wishes, never. I'm just rambling now, #EndRant.

Government isn't bad, but either is personal freedom, especially over one's finances. Both are essential.

So slightly better than the government, excellent.

At this point, Schultz has a better shot at non-Trump Republicans than Hilary ever had. The real question in my mind is if he has enough sway to win the votes of folks who opted not to vote last time. I think an increase in voter turn out is all but guaranteed, the question is which way that groups vote swings. It could split the Republican vote, or it could galvanize the right..... The further left the dems go, the more likely it seems to me that the right solidifies behind Trump - at least in vote, if not spirit. Unless Schultz can carry the Democratic base, he has no shot of pulling a significantly higher number of Republican votes than what Hilary did imo.

The status quo is already to the left of being centrist.

Maybe borderline tinfoil hat perspective, but I feel like both sides have it pretty well figured out..... Let the issues slowly play out, and use it as campaign material and talking points for another two or three decades. I personally think more wall is more useful and necessary than it is not. I also think expanding upon the current wall is simply inevitable, regardless of if it happens under Trump or not. I think Democratic voters and politicians who are opposed to this have supported other politicians in the past who have had sections of wall put into place..... And for as much grand standing as we're seeing right now, I think there will be a dem president (or 5, or 10) who approves more wall constructionution again in the future. Will dem voters blast those politicians in the future? I have my doubts. That's not to say the GOP has the end all solution in hand either. But I agree more with the construction of the wall than not. Both sides have it figured out, create controversy, and win votes.

Oh boy lol, don't go starting another government shutdown on us before we've even wrapped the current one up!!!

Yep that's awesome. One of my Aunts and Cousins are on one of those plans - I'm not sure if she's on Medishare, but it looks like the same thing. Single mom/daughter, and she seems to really like it.

I agree for the most part. But to add to your point about assault weapons, things are already further past the limits of what the American public should allow. It's a noble perspective to want to remove the potential dangers from the equation, but none of us can see into the future. It's easy to debate on the side of "safety" in today's America, all things considered, we live really peaceful and safe lives. But what about 500 years from now? Forget a tyrannical American government for a minute, what does China or Russia look like 500 years from now? History is littered with instances of tyrannical empire building governments, it's not a big stretch to be worried about the long term ramifications of our actions today. By the time I was 10 years old, I could safely use several firearms as well as any 19 y/o army brat - to remove that quality, familiarity, and education from the youth of America is a huge freaking deal..... Forget tyrannical governments, what happens when Yellowstone erupts - or insert any other unforeseen natural disaster? By the time I was 10, I could've supported my family by living of the land if push came to shove..... Even though we live convenient lives these days, we still need 10 year olds to be capable of those things - maybe not every 10 year old needs to be qualified for that, but a lot would be better than only a few.

Actually, that's not true. Lol.

Idk whether Trump thinks he needs this for re-election or not, but I don't think he does need it. This has far more impact to the Republicans at all other levels both in DC and across the county than it does Trump, imo. If Republicans in Congress as a whole fold on this, then they won't be re-elected.... However, imo, Trumps fate will essentially be made up by the electability of whoever wins the Democratic ticket, and I like to think Trump understands that. He doesn't need a big policy or moment to hang his hat on, he needs the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot, and longer this plays out, the more likely that is to happen. Beyond that, regardless of a wall, or anything else, if the best the Democrats can put forth is Clinton or Biden, Trump has a good shot.

One could make the argument that building a wall would help protect the environment. But yeah, the Dems should ask for more once they finally find some middle ground, lol. https://www.azbordertrash.gov/ https://www.cis.org/Sussis/Trash-Border-Highlights-Environmental-Cost-Illegal-Immigration

Oh man, can you imagine the Hitler/Stalin comparisons if he did personally fund the wall?? "He is so racist that he basically funded the entire thing himself!! Blahhh!" I'm not sure of how much free cash flow Trump (or anyone) has sitting in their bank account, but it would be cool if he donated his Presidential income toward the Go Fund Me thing for a month or two.

I don't think the solution is a division or pod system, but simply a "rivalry" system. I think the two most important issues that need to be addressed when making the schedule is 1) each team needs to play a home/home series with every other team within a 4 year period. 2) rivalries. 3) schedule parity. 4) conference identity. In a 16 team conference (or even in a 14 team conf.) each team can play every other school twice during a four year period with a 9 game schedule... But instead of divisions or Pods, each team would have 3 protected rivals. Then the two best records go to the conference title game. If OU and KU or TX or whoever were to join, then NU would play OU, KU, and Iowa each year for example. Then rotate the rest of the 12 conference teams on a continual home/home series rotation no different than the B12 used to do, except the rotations for each specific team wouldn't be based on division, they would be based on Parity.... With 3 protected games, and 6 home/home rotating series, then each team will play their "un"-protected games twice every 4 years making everyone feel like they are a part of the same conference..... I have this schedule set up on a huge spread sheet for the entire B10 going forward like 20 years, I don't have time right now, but I can maybe link to the full schedule later this weekend. Looking at the entire body of the schedule addresses some of the parity issues and the "unfairness" of the "protected rivals" that you see listed here. Protected games: NU: OU, KU, Iowa Iowa: NU, Minn, and Wisc Wisc: Iowa, Minn, and NW Minn: Iowa, Wisc, Mich NW: Wisc, ILL, MD ILL: OSU, NW, Purdu Pur: OU, ILL, IU IU: MSU, Pur, KU MSU: Mich, IU, RU OSU: Mich, PSU, ILL Mich: OSU, MSU, Minn Penn State: OSU, MD, and RU MD: RU, PSU, NW RU: PSU, MD, MSU OU: NU, KU, Purdue KU: OU, NU, and IU

I love the B10, don't miss being a B12 team at all, but I still think it's cool to play them.... The idea of scheduling teams like CU, OU, Texas, Kst, KU, ISU, ect is more fun today than the idea of scheduling Iowa, Wisc, Minn, or NW was two decades ago. We just have more history with those B12 teams than we do with most P12 or SEC teams, so I'd like to see us schedule B12 teams as much as possible. Missing playing those games is different than missing being a conference member though.