If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2232 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 05:48:14 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: You are. The US still has hundreds of thousands of mines in use in Korea. It doesn't mention the last time they were used because there is no last time.

Yeah there is, I linked it. You are ignoring it, because you are dishonest.

Your link which talks about re-searching them and and the ROE for using them makes no mention of use since 91.



and more proof that you are a liar.

"We have ended the use of all persistent mines," a State Department official said on condition of anonymity, adding the Defense Department had notified personnel in the field that "these were off the table, that they're being moved to the inactive stockpile and are no longer an option for use."

While retaining stockpiles, the United States has not used persistent mines for some time. The last field of persistent mines under U.S. control was in Guantanamo, Cuba, and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said.

"But until ... 11:59 of December 31, 2010, that option was there under the policy for the Department of Defense to lay a long-life minefield if they saw fit," the spokesman said. "That option has been removed from the table."

Under a 2004 policy put in place by President George W. Bush, U.S. use of persistent mines was limited almost exclusively to South Korea. Anti-vehicle persistent mines could be used elsewhere only by authorization of the president.
(new window)

If they hadn't been used since 1991, why was the Pentagon announcing they were ending the use of persistant landmines (and persistant landmines only) in 2010?
 
2011-09-21 05:49:44 PM

KiltedBastich: The cases where the child is actually only supported by a single parent are cases where either one parent is dead or legally incapacitated, is a surrogate or sperm donor, or else where one parent is a deadbeat. None of those are the situation you are advocating for.


No, no, let's let him advocate for letting men unilaterally waive their child support obligations, said men being immediately either institutionalized or killed.
 
2011-09-21 05:50:52 PM

EWreckedSean: KiltedBastich:
Again, bullshiat. I am completely pro-choice. I am not in favor of letting a selfish father deny support to a child who needs it, nor am I in favor of him being able to force the mother to have an abortion.

Let me put it this way, you are ok with denying a child life for the mother's rights, but not denying it lifestyle for the father's.


Can the fetus survive on it's own? Then it can be born, it then has rights, and it has the right to support.

Is it unable to survive on it's own? Then it does not have rights, as it is part of the mother's body and has no rights independent from hers, and her decisions are all that counts.

It's really very simple. You should be able to keep track if you try.

liam76: In Maryland they are. I saw it in family court (got to serve as a divorce witness) that it was roled into child payments.


Then I would disagree with that law on procedural grounds, because it is muddying the situation and making it unclear what the rationale for jurisprudence should be. That doesn't change my basic position on the underlying issue.

lennavan: Theaetetus: Except that an abortion, by definition, does not harm a child.

That seemed to be his point. He responded to someone who said you cannot take a single point in time. See this part of your post:

Theaetetus: KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Because if you are not allowed to restrict the discussion to one point, then you cannot say things such as:

Theaetetus: But that has nothing to do with abortion, which does not involve children.

So in disagreeing, it seems you actually agreed with him.


Note the bolded part. Abortion involves ending a pregnancy, which involves a fetus, which does not have rights. After birth, that status changes, and the fetus is now a child, and does have rights. See how that works?

You keep trying to conflate the two, when they are not the same, and it doesn't work.

lennavan: That guy also thinks rights is a contract between mother and father and that's what I'm talking about. Are you really going to go that route?


No, you apparently have reading comprehension issues. I am saying quite expressly that the agreement between the mother and father that you described is a contract and thus doesn't affect rights, and therefore has no legal standing for the purposes of denying the child its right to support.
 
2011-09-21 05:51:44 PM

serial_crusher: I asked earlier and didn't get an answer so I'll ask again....
If the child's not a child until it's born, how do you justify holding the father responsible? The "he made his decision when he had sex" argument doesn't work if the sex isn't what created the child. He had sex with her, then 9 months later she chose to have a baby. Might as well pick any arbitrary man to be financially responsible, not the one whose sperm she utilized in the making of said baby.



That ridiculous...fertilization + incubation = child. Just because it isn't recognized as a person (and, hence, granted rights) until it is born does not mean that sex didn't create it.
 
2011-09-21 05:52:23 PM

Theaetetus: KiltedBastich: The cases where the child is actually only supported by a single parent are cases where either one parent is dead or legally incapacitated, is a surrogate or sperm donor, or else where one parent is a deadbeat. None of those are the situation you are advocating for.

No, no, let's let him advocate for letting men unilaterally waive their child support obligations, said men being immediately either institutionalized or killed.


*snerk* Now that would be funny.
 
2011-09-21 05:53:00 PM

Headso: The semantics of how you are trying to get out of your responsibilities doesn't change the overall point.


Totally making a deal with the mother is kinda different than adopting a legal process where a father could go into a courtroom and give up his potential rights/responsibilities to a specific potential child.

Kinda like the difference between a contract between a man and a woman to totally not have the child and a woman actually going to get an abortion.

I do enjoy that you've made it personally about me though. As if the only reason to propose this position is for me to get out of my own responsibilities. Do you feel this way about other liberal issues? I mean, I wonder how you would respond if you were a proponent of raising the minimum wage and someone said "you just want more money for yourself." Or if you were suggesting extending unemployment "you yourself just want to keep being a lazy ass."
 
2011-09-21 05:54:09 PM

fuhfuhfuh: lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Why? Both of you use incredibly specious reasoning and tons of logical fallacies, all the while accusing others of what you are doing.

My favorite part of your post was the examples section you posted. It was amazingly thorough.

OH MY GOD! You actually quoted the entirety of what I wrote and commented on said entirety! Too bad you apparently are unable to do that consistently, seeing as how most all of your arguments are based on out-of-context quotes. I guess more than a single sentence is too much for you to read and comment on.



My favorite part about your reply is I mocked you for a complete lack of examples and in response, you still did not provide any and instead tried to divert the conversation. Try something shiny next time, I love shiny stuff.
 
2011-09-21 05:56:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: and more proof that you are a liar I have no idea what I was talking about.


FTFY.

Philip Francis Queeg: While retaining stockpiles, the United States has not used persistent mines for some time. The last field of persistent mines under U.S. control was in Guantanamo, Cuba, and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said.

"But until ... 11:59 of December 31, 2010, that option was there under the policy for the Department of Defense to lay a long-life minefield if they saw fit," the spokesman said. "That option has been removed from the table."


Controlling a field isn't "using it".

In 2010, they were taking the option off the table.

Philip Francis Queeg: If they hadn't been used since 1991, why was the Pentagon announcing they were ending the use of persistant landmines (and persistant landmines only) in 2010.


I really don't know if you have trouble reading or you are just trying to play dumb in hopes that nobody sees you are full of shiat.

Just because they had the option to use something doesn't mean they did.
 
2011-09-21 05:58:09 PM

liam76: In Maryland they are. I saw it in family court (got to serve as a divorce witness) that it was roled into child payments.


"Rolled into" - so you do understand that it was separate to start, and got merged together for efficiency? Good.
The courts don't require someone to write two checks to the same person, even if there are different causes of action involved. This isn't some strict form-over-function regime.

Theaetetus: If he defaults on his obligation to the mother, the mother can sue him.
If he defaults on his obligation to the child, the child can sue him.
The different plaintiffs are due to the different rights and different standing

See above.

And even in states where that isn't the case that still makes no distinction between "quasi-contractual obligation" and child support.


No, even in Maryland, as you note, there's a distinction between the two. The courts don't require the father to write one check to the mother, and a second check to the mother as guardian ad litem. However, the amount that would be in the second check may be taxed differently, audited differently, require an accounting as part of the mother's duty to the child, etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, the fact that you only sign one check doesn't mean that there's no actual distinction involved. That's a really naive argument.
 
2011-09-21 05:59:05 PM

KiltedBastich: Note the bolded part. Abortion involves ending a pregnancy, which involves a fetus, which does not have rights. After birth, that status changes, and the fetus is now a child, and does have rights. See how that works?


Yep. That child has the right to child support from its parent(s). Now, if a father were to rescind, prior to that child getting rights, the child would be born with only one parent. See how that works?
 
2011-09-21 05:59:47 PM

lennavan: KiltedBastich: Note the bolded part. Abortion involves ending a pregnancy, which involves a fetus, which does not have rights. After birth, that status changes, and the fetus is now a child, and does have rights. See how that works?

Yep. That child has the right to child support from its parent(s). Now, if a father were to rescind, prior to that child getting rights, the child would be born with only one parent. See how that works?


... holy shiat, he is arguing for letting the father rescind and immediately killing him. :D
 
2011-09-21 06:01:28 PM

KiltedBastich: I am saying quite expressly that the agreement between the mother and father that you described is a contract and thus doesn't affect rights


When the hell did I ever talk about an agreement between the mother and father? That would be incredibly stupid. If a mother wants an abortion, she doesn't need the father to agree. If a father wants to rescind his rights, he doesn't need the mother to agree. It's not an agreement. It's not between the parents. It should be between the father and the courts.

KiltedBastich: No, you apparently have reading comprehension issues.


I think you have reading comprehension issues. The irony here - the only way to show you you have reading comprehension issues requires you to have reading comprehension. Teehee.
 
2011-09-21 06:03:20 PM

DrPainMD: Fart_Machine: DrPainMD: No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.

Jim Crow laws were put in place through support of the general population. The whole States Rights movement started because that nasty Fed wanted to remove the right of Segregation from those pesky southern states.

Exactly. Which is why freedom is always better than government control. The southern bus companies were hit hard financially when the bus strikes began, and lobbied for and end to government-mandated bus segregation. They couldn't desegregate their bus seating without violating the law. It's none of the general population's business how bus companies arrange their seating and the government has no business forcing the general population's wishes on the bus companies.


LOLWUT?

On Thursday, December 8, the fourth day of the boycott, King and other MIA officials met with officials and lawyers from the bus company, as well as the city commissioners, to present a moderate desegregation plan similar to the one already implemented in Baton Rouge and other Southern cities, including Mobile, Alabama. The MIA was hopeful that the plan would be accepted and the boycott would end, but the bus company refused to consider it.
 
2011-09-21 06:04:16 PM

lennavan: KiltedBastich: Note the bolded part. Abortion involves ending a pregnancy, which involves a fetus, which does not have rights. After birth, that status changes, and the fetus is now a child, and does have rights. See how that works?

Yep. That child has the right to child support from its parent(s). Now, if a father were to rescind, prior to that child getting rights, the child would be born with only one parent. See how that works?


What you keep failing to grasp is that the father cannot make that choice. It is not legally in his power to do so, nor should it be, because it infringes on the rights of the child to have support.

Theaetetus: ... holy shiat, he is arguing for letting the father rescind and immediately killing him. :D


Well, if he wants to kill himself, there's no need to bother rescinding in the first place, unless you are really worried about your estate. Seems pointless to me at that point...
 
2011-09-21 06:07:06 PM

lennavan: If a father wants to rescind his rights, he doesn't need the mother to agree. It's not an agreement. It's not between the parents. It should be between the father and the courts.


Sure. As we've been saying, child support is the right of the child - the mother actually gets no say in the matter.

Now, what makes you think a court, acting in its capacity as guardian ad litem for the child, will let the father walk away from his child support obligations?
 
2011-09-21 06:07:25 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: and more proof that you are a liar I have no idea what I was talking about.

FTFY.

Philip Francis Queeg: While retaining stockpiles, the United States has not used persistent mines for some time. The last field of persistent mines under U.S. control was in Guantanamo, Cuba, and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said.

"But until ... 11:59 of December 31, 2010, that option was there under the policy for the Department of Defense to lay a long-life minefield if they saw fit," the spokesman said. "That option has been removed from the table."

Controlling a field isn't "using it".

In 2010, they were taking the option off the table.

Philip Francis Queeg: If they hadn't been used since 1991, why was the Pentagon announcing they were ending the use of persistant landmines (and persistant landmines only) in 2010.

I really don't know if you have trouble reading or you are just trying to play dumb in hopes that nobody sees you are full of shiat.

Just because they had the option to use something doesn't mean they did.


Really the best you've got is a fantastically lame attempt to say that controlling an active minefield isn't "using" mines, and ignoring the fact that the Government spokesman used the exact term "ended the use of persistent mines" for describing their action in 2010?

Come one, that setting a new low of intellectual dishonesty even for you.
 
2011-09-21 06:07:28 PM

lennavan: When the hell did I ever talk about an agreement between the mother and father? That would be incredibly stupid. If a mother wants an abortion, she doesn't need the father to agree. If a father wants to rescind his rights, he doesn't need the mother to agree. It's not an agreement. It's not between the parents. It should be between the father and the courts.


Ah, so he is rescinding his rights to the child in the future, and not to the fetus, which is part of the mother at that point. That means he is tacitly acknowledging the future existence of the child, and that it will exist and be a legal entity at that future point when his request actually has meaning.

And then he is violating the child's right to support, and the courts toss his ass out because he does not get to do that.
 
2011-09-21 06:24:04 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said.


Funny that your whole argument rests on the damage they do to civilians, yet we cleared the field...

Philip Francis Queeg: Really the best you've got is a fantastically lame attempt to say that controlling an active minefield isn't "using" mines, and ignoring the fact that the Government spokesman used the exact term "ended the use of persistent mines" for describing their action in 2010?


If we got rid of nuclear weapons in the US and a spokesman said we ended their use in 2011, would that make the claim that we last used them in WWII a lie?

Using a landmine is taking it and putting it in the ground. Not controlling a field where they exist.

You are ignoring your own quote where they say they had the option, and it is now off the table. Somehting being on the table doesn't mean it was used.

You cherry picked lines from your article, Ignoring one that backed up what Is aid earlier, "The United States is not known to have used anti-personnel landmines since the 1991 Gulf War and abides by many provisions of the treaty. " (new window)
 
2011-09-21 06:37:02 PM

liam76: Using a landmine is taking it and putting it in the ground.


Heh, Nice. Define the word the way you need to so as to make your statements not a lie. One of your classic methods of intellectual dishonesty.

You see, the problem is that as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, land mines are intrinsically different that nuclear or other types of weapons. Once placed in the ground they remain active and deadly with no further action or control from the user. They don't have to be fired, aimed, or launched. Once placed, they remain in use until they are either triggered by an enemy(or a 6 year old) or until they are removed. Your definition of the "Use" of a land mine is utter nonsense.

But you're not satisfied with that are you? No, now you move onto denying that land mines remain a threat to civilians. Even when minefields are removed with the best of intentions, mines are missed. They remain, hidden and deadly. Just because a military says they removed the mine field doesn't mean the danger has passed. Far from it. That's precisely why so many people around the world are working to ban their use.
 
2011-09-21 07:06:51 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Heh, Nice. Define the word the way you need to so as to make your statements not a lie. One of your classic methods of intellectual dishonesty.


No I used the word as I found it in research.

As used in the link I posted hours ago. As used in the link you posted yourself. Of course you only cruised it for lines to cherry pick and twist, otherwise you would have realized your post backed me up, but you are too full of shiat to admit you are wrong.

Philip Francis Queeg: You see, the problem is that as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, land mines are intrinsically different that nuclear or other types of weapons. Once placed in the ground they remain active and deadly with no further action or control from the user. They don't have to be fired, aimed, or launched. Once placed, they remain in use until they are either triggered by an enemy(or a 6 year old) or until they are removed. Your definition of the "Use" of a land mine is utter nonsense.


It s nonsense, yet that was the definition "used" in your linked article. Yet you have found no source that has defined "use" of a landmine when it goes off.

And I said the last time they were used. Not last time in use. Even if I was to accept your claim (which I don't, and which was refuted by your own link) it wouldn't make me wrong.

I used to have you favorited as "thinks Weather Underground is as bad as Al Queda", didn't think you could get worse than that. I am going to have to replace it with " when challenged to back up his claims he uses a link that proves you are right and still insists you lied" Probably not enough room for that might have to go with something simpler...

Philip Francis Queeg: But you're not satisfied with that are you? No, now you move onto denying that land mines remain a threat to civilians.


From the guy who moved the goal posts to Iran and nuclear weapons that is rich. And has ignored that his own links proved I am right so he tries to, poorly, lecture me about how they work.


PS dipshiat after a nuclear weapon is "used" it also remains deadly.
 
2011-09-21 07:27:56 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Heh, Nice. Define the word the way you need to so as to make your statements not a lie. One of your classic methods of intellectual dishonesty.

No I used the word as I found it in research.

As used in the link I posted hours ago. As used in the link you posted yourself. Of course you only cruised it for lines to cherry pick and twist, otherwise you would have realized your post backed me up, but you are too full of shiat to admit you are wrong.

Philip Francis Queeg: You see, the problem is that as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, land mines are intrinsically different that nuclear or other types of weapons. Once placed in the ground they remain active and deadly with no further action or control from the user. They don't have to be fired, aimed, or launched. Once placed, they remain in use until they are either triggered by an enemy(or a 6 year old) or until they are removed. Your definition of the "Use" of a land mine is utter nonsense.

It s nonsense, yet that was the definition "used" in your linked article. Yet you have found no source that has defined "use" of a landmine when it goes off.

And I said the last time they were used. Not last time in use. Even if I was to accept your claim (which I don't, and which was refuted by your own link) it wouldn't make me wrong.

I used to have you favorited as "thinks Weather Underground is as bad as Al Queda", didn't think you could get worse than that. I am going to have to replace it with " when challenged to back up his claims he uses a link that proves you are right and still insists you lied" Probably not enough room for that might have to go with something simpler...

Philip Francis Queeg: But you're not satisfied with that are you? No, now you move onto denying that land mines remain a threat to civilians.

From the guy who moved the goal posts to Iran and nuclear weapons that is rich. And has ignored that his own links proved I am right so he tries to, poorly, lecture me about how they work.


PS dipshiat after a nuclear weapon is "used" it also remains deadly.


Oh do post trhe direct quote where "Using a land mine" is defined as "taking it and putting it in the ground"
 
2011-09-21 08:14:15 PM

guestguy: serial_crusher: I asked earlier and didn't get an answer so I'll ask again....
If the child's not a child until it's born, how do you justify holding the father responsible? The "he made his decision when he had sex" argument doesn't work if the sex isn't what created the child. He had sex with her, then 9 months later she chose to have a baby. Might as well pick any arbitrary man to be financially responsible, not the one whose sperm she utilized in the making of said baby.

That ridiculous...fertilization + incubation = child. Just because it isn't recognized as a person (and, hence, granted rights) until it is born does not mean that sex didn't create it.


Ah, so like he starts the process, she finishes it up, so they're both responsible? I guess that works. I'll have to think on that before I use that particular argument again.

/still think the "it's not a person until it's born" argument itself is just a cop-out, but that's another thread.
 
2011-09-22 06:45:17 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh do post trhe direct quote where "Using a land mine" is defined as "taking it and putting it in the ground


I never claimed there was a direct quote.

However it is pretty easy too figure out what "used" means in context.

US has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, nor produced them since 1997.
(new window)

None of your links counter that. The first PDF fwas from the first Gulf war, your second link made absolutely no claim about when they were last used and your third link, actuall backed me up with the very same usage, "The United States is not known to have used anti-personnel landmines since the 1991 Gulf War and abides by many provisions of the treaty. " (new window)

Now what exacvtly do you think they mean by "used" there if not placed?

But lets not get distracted here. I said the last time they were used was in 1991. You called me a liar yet provided nothing to back up your claim and even linked to something that said I was right, yet still refuse to admit you are the one who is wrong.
 
2011-09-23 10:49:32 AM

Theaetetus: lennavan: If a father wants to rescind his rights, he doesn't need the mother to agree. It's not an agreement. It's not between the parents. It should be between the father and the courts.

Sure. As we've been saying, child support is the right of the child - the mother actually gets no say in the matter.

Now, what makes you think a court, acting in its capacity as guardian ad litem for the child, will let the father walk away from his child support obligations?



A court won't. What I'm arguing is the child will have no legal father. There is no father walking away, there is no loss of revenue or loss of income because there is no father.
 
2011-09-23 10:50:55 AM

KiltedBastich: That means he is tacitly acknowledging the future existence of the child


Kinda like abortion? Tacitly acknowledging the future existence of the child, so we better quick stop it now? I don't think you realize how close to pro-life you are right now, do you?
 
2011-09-23 10:55:25 AM

KiltedBastich: What you keep failing to grasp is that the father cannot make that choice. It is not legally in his power to do so, nor should it be, because it infringes on the rights of the child to have support.


What you keep failing to grasp is the time frame at which a father could do this is when it is not a child and does not have rights. If it's legal to abort it, why isn't it legal to rescind rights and responsibilities to it? When it becomes a child, it has its own rights. What I'm telling you is the child has no father. It never had a father. For every single instant it was a person with rights, it had no father.

Just as an aborted fetus never was a person with rights, so it never had a right to life, a shunned fetus never had a father, so it never had a right to child support from the father.
 
2011-09-23 04:30:59 PM

lennavan: KiltedBastich: That means he is tacitly acknowledging the future existence of the child

Kinda like abortion? Tacitly acknowledging the future existence of the child, so we better quick stop it now? I don't think you realize how close to pro-life you are right now, do you?


After an abortion, there will be no child, so there are no rights to violate. After your rescinding rights bullshiat, there will still be a child, and its rights are still violated. It's really a very simple distinction. You are apparently willfully ignorant of the difference there.

lennavan: What you keep failing to grasp is the time frame at which a father could do this is when it is not a child and does not have rights. If it's legal to abort it, why isn't it legal to rescind rights and responsibilities to it? When it becomes a child, it has its own rights. What I'm telling you is the child has no father. It never had a father. For every single instant it was a person with rights, it had no father.

Just as an aborted fetus never was a person with rights, so it never had a right to life, a shunned fetus never had a father, so it never had a right to child support from the father.


It simply does not matter. Once the child is born, the child has rights, and your argument violates them. The only way this could ever work is if you prevented the child from being born. You can't handwave away paternity as you are suggesting. An abortion ends the pregnancy in a physical, biological way; there is no child as a result. Your suggestion is a legal fiction, which fails immediately due to the fact that there is still an actual child with actual rights once everything is said and done, and you are still the actual, physical, biological parent.

That child's right to support trumps your desire to simply not have to bother with it.
 
Displayed 27 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report