ActualCornHusker

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

The viability of a fetus outside the womb is still a highly debated topic, and the Bible even alludes to the fact that an unborn baby is not equivalent to a full grown human. There's a verse in the old testament about causing a woman to miscarry only being a fine, where murder is punished with death. I don't believe anything close to abortion is ever mentioned in the new testament. So the modern Christian assumption is entirely man made.

 

I always find it odd that any self proclaimed libertarian could actually say the government has a decision in what a woman does with her body for a given period of time.

Libertarians from a social perspective typically abide by the non aggression principle. You can look it up if you're unfamiliar. And I'd say in the different libertarian forums I've had discussions in, the abortion issue is pretty split. 

Bottom line for me, it's not the woman's body that is being harmed here - it's her baby's.

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Ahead of what? Where in the bible does it talk about abortion again?

Christians have maintained for decades that a fetus is a human being with intrinsic worth, and it has taken the "science" community a long time to catch up because they're just now beginning to accept that fact.

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Do you believe that charitable giving could take care of all social issues that need to be addressed throughout our population?

Most likely not, but the government welfare programs don't either, so I don't see why that's always the excuse of why we have to have all of the existing govt programs.

Although I'd be interested what you think of the idea of a negative income tax (form of UBI promoted by Milton Friedman) in place of existing welfare programs

1 minute ago, ZRod said:

That's great and all, but why can't the government (We the people and all that jazz... To promote the general welfare) help protect it's citizens basic needs? Most of Europe figured out a way. But here we'll protect you until your born, then good luck to ya.

How about this: give people the option to direct where their money gets sent after it's stolen from them. All non-profit organizations are eligible as well as government programs, and taxpayers can log into a website and select which organizations they'd like to send their money to. Then the far left can send their money to planned parenthood, the hard right can send their money to the defense department, and reasonable and rational individuals can send their money to actual charities that do good things that we value.

In all reality though, I've always been intrigued by the idea of a UBI in the form of a negative income tax kind of like what Milton Friedman talked about. The structure could be set up not to disincentivize people from entering the work force.

Even as a libertarian who despises government programs, this is one issue that I could go for as long as it was put in place of all of our existing welfare programs.

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Thanks for sharing link - I'll probably have to take a peek later this evening more in-depth.

 

I don't necessarily think conservatives aren't charitable or have no heart, but I can give one example of a situation where I personally feel conservatives are wrong and that's in regards to same-sex fostering and adoption. I'm not sure where Nebraska currently sits on this, but I sat in the legislative hearings as a reporter in ~2014ish when this was under review in the state for some reason (don't remember the details). Virtually all conservatives (particularly religious conservatives) voiced opposition to allowing same sex couples to foster and/or adopt children.

 

I had a chance to speak to both sides, including same sex couples who had previously fostered in other states or wanted to now. Conservative arguments mostly boiled down to it going against their beliefs. But the potential same sex parents I talked to all seemed like very loving, caring people, who just wanted to provide a good home for a child. I also have a good friend (who is now 28) who grew up with two dads. For all intents and purposes, he's "normal." Married to a woman. Has a kid. Pays his taxes. Volunteers at the food bank.

 

Obviously just one example, but those are the kind of opportunities I feel like conservatives should support if they're truly against abortion.

I'd rather have a child raised by a loving gay couple than a heterosexual couple that is abusive or negligent, so yeah I hear you.

2 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Are they? Because caring about people is caring about people no matter who they are. At least to me.

Please see my most recent reply above.

6 minutes ago, Enhance said:

While true, by that point I would argue the symbiotic relationship is mostly over. A baby could be raised by a father or some other guardian. The baby would also have access to various social programs or adoption. And that is actually what I would prefer happen in the vast majority of cases (i.e. adoption or social program assistance vs. abortion).

 

I met my wife's 46-year-old sister four years ago. We had no idea she existed. Given up for adoption at 16. She's a tremendous person that has brought a lot of love and joy to the world.

 

So I've long felt at odds with Republicans on this issue. Naturally, they tend to be pro-life, but seem much more hesitant to provide for the child once it enters the world. It has always felt a tad hypocritical to me. Conversely, I've felt at odds with Democrats because their attitudes often seem to blasé towards the baby.

 

Very much agree with this. I don't think there's a clean answer and we obviously will never be able to satisfy everyone. I generally lean the less abortions the better while leaving room for some nuance.

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals

LINK

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

How do you reconcile the death penalty? War? Not funding SNAP or headstart programs? Tearing down public education? Cutting medicare and social security? Maintaining crippling student loan requirements but forgiving PPP?

 

Why do we only care about "people" when they're in the womb, but as soon as they're out they need to pull themselves up by their boot straps?

Why does "caring for people" always have to involve sending a$$-loads of money to the most corrupt organization in the world with hopes that it makes it to people who need it?

Not to mention, those are 2 completely separate issues.

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

That's the problem with "beliefs".  Everyone thinks "why can't everyone agree with me".  Fact is, everyone comes from different lives and experiences.

 

I'll give you one that I'll admit, I can't necessarily explain.  Like I said, I'm pro-life...if I have to be cornered on the subject.  I think late term abortions are horrible and disgusting.  However, I don't have a problem with things like the Morning After Pill.  I don't have as big of problems with abortions very very early in a pregnancy when it's pretty much an embryo.  I guess I would say I believe life begins at conception because I can't give you a definitive answer as to when I really start having a problem with it. 

 

However, I REALLY wish we lived in a world where abortions weren't needed.

But wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between belief, such as my belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and died to save those who believe in Him from their sin, and verifiable scientific fact? What's interesting is that the Christian community has been ahead of the "science" crowd on this one for a long time.

Just now, funhusker said:

Not really.  It's dependent on a responsible caregiver.

Semantics, but the point stands.

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Personally I think yes, at least to some degree. The baby can't naturally survive without the mother up until a certain point so they form a symbiotic relationship. Additionally, in cases of rape/incest (particularly rape), the mother did not have a choice in becoming a mother. That's a circumstance I've generally always left room for because I can't imagine what it must feel like to not only know you've been raped but that you're also pregnant with a child that's from the attacker. Some women have killed themselves over that kind of stuff. And I think forcing them to give birth in those situations trivializes women into objects. But, that's just my two cents. Out of curiosity, where do you fall or how would you answer?

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. 

In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though. I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The problem with that is, you will never convince everyone to believe that.  So, it becomes an extremely hot political battle, when we could be putting that effort towards things that actually matter.

I really don't see why everyone (at least a significant portion of people) couldn't acknowledge that the baby is a human being. Even a lot of pro-choicers-for-any-reason have begun acknowledging that it's a human but that they're okay with killing them anyways. 

I agree with your other post about doing other things to educate people so that abortion rates continue to plummet, but there's no reason we can't do both, and I think the education that the tiny bundle of cells inside the woman is a living human being with its own unique DNA is education that should be provided to women as well.

Is there a highlight tape of Drew from Texas Tech?

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is such a silly argument. If the woman's body doesn't have to do with this, then just separate the bodies.

 

There are stronger arguments that the right to life of the fetus outweighs the right to body of the woman but trying to separate those issues is ridiculous.

How is it silly? Please explain. I have a feeling which direction you'll go here but would rather you explain than me assume

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You might want to read it.

OK I read the thread and a couple tweets from the 2 guys the poster tagged as well. It's definitely an interesting theory.

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I've struggled with this issue virtually my whole adult life. I'm generally against abortions excepting cases of rape/incest. But, I also don't feel like I have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body and there are other select circumstances where I can see the argument for why someone may want one.

 

So I don't really know if there's a clean way to reconcile it, at least for me personally. I readily accept that I don't fall objectively into either the pro-life or pro-choice category, for better or for worse. Seems like most of our politicians want to make it a binary either/or situation and for whatever reason I've never been able to do that.

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Did you even read the thread?

I read the part that showed up on the forum. I know in your mind conservatives are some radical group of rabid animals these days, but seriously... If it was actually leaked by a person on the conservative side, then that person is a moron. Anyone with an IQ over 50 would know what would ensue after that leak, which is hordes of radical lefties showing up at the doorstep of the supreme court to cry and whine, and the lives and safety of the 5 judges as well as their families would be in danger. It totally could be that it was someone on the right who leaked it, but MAN they'd be dumb.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I see you have no comment on the actual subject of the thread that actually gives reasoning for her thoughts.

Doesn't really matter who leaked it - they should be fired at the very least, and potentially prosecuted.

But the most likely explanation for the leak was that a radical leftist leaked it knowing that the intimidation forces would be set upon the 5 who are voting to overturn it to try to get them to change their vote before the decision is made official.

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I posted this in another thread.  But, it gives an interesting view of possible motivation.

 

 

Here comes Blue Anon 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

I actually liked the type of athletes we recruited at tackle. They were big, tall, and leaner. They just couldn't execute the position; outside of Teddy who looked great in what little action he had.

 

It's really coaching and fundamentals that have held us back. It's not that hard to not get whooped around the outside all the time, or get movement off the ball on run plays. A lot of things just come down to pad level, foot work, and anticipating the defenders moves. 

I don't know enough in-depth about all that, it's more of a curious question for me. I've heard Damon Benning talk a few times about our tackles playing too tall, and also kind of talking about how he likes shorter D Linemen because they can get under the pads of the OL and create more leverage.

But my general read has been that since Frost got here, there have consistently been OL recruits that people have been very excited about, but their play didn't live up to expectations, which mainly points to coaching and development.

12 minutes ago, nic said:

That is only part of the shift. People that say a baby in the womb is not fully human and just a fetus until it comes out are just as nonsensical as those that say no abortion ever. A cultural shift would be for people to treat abortion like a life and death decision and do what is best for all involved. 

Question: If we acknowledge that a baby in the womb is a human being, how do we reconcile that with the idea of allowing any abortions at all? I'm just genuinely interested in the rationale here.

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I'm glad to check out some substantiated sources on Biden checking all those boxes.

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You can speculate and imagine implications about the 'sketchy' nature of a career politician until you're blue in the face (we all understand that Biden, and politicians in general, are not and can not be squeaky clean), but when it comes down to the preponderance of direct evidence, there's no argument for what you're saying.

 

One of the two has had dozens of sexual assault allegations, the other hasn't.

How about a credible and corroborated account of Joe fingering a woman without permission

Not to mention the pedophilic tendencies in broad daylight including pinching a young girl's nipple

 

One has professionally and politically surrounded themselves with criminals (some of them proven to be actual traitors, and some of them in prison), the other hasn't.

Have you heard of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's bag-man? well... Here you go.

 

One has a consistent history of defrauding employees, contractors, partners, construction crews, "students" and so on out of millions of dollars, the other hasn't.

Joe has never been productive in society so I'll skip this one

 

One has bragged about either committing or the idea of sexual assault and also admitted to watching minors change in dressing rooms of their pageant, the other hasn't.

 

Quote

"I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified," Flores wrote. "He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused."

 

Since then, three women told similar allegations stories to the New York Times and another three on Wednesday came forward in the Post. 

 

LINK

 

One has been found by the DOJ of engaging in racist housing policies twice, the other hasn't.

Again, Joe has never built anything, but here's a fun video with just a few examples: Joe being racist (and weird). Mostly Joe's racism comes in the standard Democrat form: Bigotry of low expectations.

 

One has more than a few times followed/liked/retweeted s#!t from alt-right and neo-nazi twitter accounts, the other hasn't.

There's no shortage of horrendous things Joe Biden has said or lied about

Oh, don't forget when he casually threatened American citizens with nukes

 

One has openly asked our biggest geopolitical enemy to spy on their political opponent, the other hasn't.

1st of all, that's quite the leftist exaggeration of what Trump did, but what do you think about Biden telling Russia (and all of our other enemies) exactly where we are most vulnerable

Or what about the shady deals with the CCP

 

That's only the easiest, smallest low hanging fruit start of the list.

Links can be found within the quote of your post. Enjoy.

What I posted is literally just scratching the surface. There should be no doubt that the Biden family are liars and criminals, similar to the Clintons but not to the scale that the Clintons were able to achieve (that we know of).

Biden is every bad adjective that has been used to describe Trump, and more.

11 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

You can speculate and imagine implications about the 'sketchy' nature of a career politician until you're blue in the face (we all understand that Biden, and politicians in general, are not and can not be squeaky clean), but when it comes down to the preponderance of direct evidence, there's no argument for what you're saying.

 

One of the two has had dozens of sexual assault allegations, the other hasn't.

 

One has professionally and politically surrounded themselves with criminals (some of them proven to be actual traitors, and some of them in prison), the other hasn't.

 

One has a consistent history of defrauding employees, contractors, partners, construction crews, "students" and so on out of millions of dollars, the other hasn't.

 

One has bragged about either committing or the idea of sexual assault and also admitted to watching minors change in dressing rooms of their pageant, the other hasn't.

 

One has been found by the DOJ of engaging in racist housing policies twice, the other hasn't.

 

One has more than a few times followed/liked/retweeted s#!t from alt-right and neo-nazi twitter accounts, the other hasn't.

 

One has openly asked our biggest geopolitical enemy to spy on their political opponent, the other hasn't.

 

That's only the easiest, smallest low hanging fruit start of the list.

You obvioiusly haven't paid attention then because Biden checks off every one of those boxes, except for the ones about ripping off contractors and housing practices because he's never actually built anything or been productive in any way. 

If you think I'm about to defend Trump, I'm not. But one of the slime balls we're talking about is a part of a protected class of people and gets his dirty laundry covered up, while the other somehow is an outsider and not only gets his dirty laundry shown for all to see, but also has his (already bad) laundry exaggerated and manipulated to make him seem even worse than he is (which is bad enough).

Just now, ZRod said:

But we don't seem to have any depth at tackle, and haven't for years. It's tough to make it through a full B1G season at any position. We have to focus on building depth along the line no matter who the coaches are.

Fair. I also wonder if Raiola will have a preference for different body types than the guys Frost & Austin recruited over the last 4-5 years. OL & DL are the 2 groups that take the longest to transform, and are also the most important position groups on the team. I hope Frost & Raiola earn the opportunity to build that going forward

10 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

Maybe not defending, but there's an awful lot of false equivalency between him and Biden as far as character and behavior in here.

I'd contend that based on the confirmed evidence we have on both, Biden is the far more sketchy individual, both personally and politically. But he's a part of the "in group" so he gets covered for

Edit: So that I'm clear, that doesn't mean I think Trump is admirable as a person, but good God...

3 minutes ago, Jason Sitoke said:

 

 

As BIG ERN and Decked have pointed out, as long as our tackles stay healthy I feel decent about the OL at the very least