1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Our Crazed Sexuality Standards

PluckyMo Wrote: Jan 15, 2014 8:36 AM
Children with genetic or physical abnormalities should of course receive the appropriate medical treatment. You are introducing a straw man argument. The discussion is about people who are genetically and physically normal for their biological gender who decide as children that they want to change that gender. Our responsibility as adults is to help these children understand that while their biology does not define what achievements they are capable of, it does define what bathroom and locker room they use and what their reproductive organs look like. There is no shame in telling a little girl that she will never be a daddy or a little boy that he will never be a mommy.
Shortening the list of people to whom you owe money is a big deal psychologically. When you can retire a debt it spurs you on to continue the process. All else being equal, of course pay down the highest interest rate first; but don't underestimate the power of paying off a debt, even a small one.
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 12:23 PM
Expected by society as a whole and by CPS, who will take my children (both under 10) away if I am even accused of giving them alcohol or a cigarette. It would be considered child endangerment. I have a thorough understandng of the concepts of liberty and personal choice. That is one of the reasons I simply choose not to shop at the mall I mentioned above rather than suing them for violating my "right" to shop there in comfort. I also understand that both concepts are accompanied by the responsibiity to make sure that my personal choices do not infringe upon the liberties of others. In fact, I must attend to my responsibilities before I worry about enjoying my liberties, reversing those two choices results in hedonism.
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:06 AM
(cont)...This situation is just one of many that I have never heard advocates of decriminalization or legalization address. I agree that the status quo, frequently referred to as the "War on Drugs", is not having the outcomes we would like to see. I would happily participate in a discussion of alternatives. However, free access to these substances is not the answer.
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:01 AM
(cont)....This scenario is just one of many situations that I have never heard those who advocate decriminalization or legalization address. I agree that the status quo, frequently referred to as the "War on Drugs", is inadequate. But I have yet to hear a suggestion from someone who differs with me that has a chance of truly improving things.
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:56 AM
Just as I am expected to keep my small children away from alcohol and tobacco products, I would be expected to keep my children away from legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Currently, to go to the mall I must walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke at the entrance that is a result of smoking being banned *in* the mall. As a result, I rarely go to the mall because I have no desire to smoke, especially not second hand, and I never take my children. If marijuana were decriminizalied, that smoke would include marijuana also. How could any one in good conscience then take a minor to a public place that allows smoking? Doing so nearly guarantees exposure....
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:44 AM
Most conservatives are not well-enough informed on the topic to agree or disagree based on the merits of the article. They will either agree because they have libertarian leanings (or maybe because they secretly like the idea of readily available mind-altering substances) or they will knee-jerk disagree because "the party" disagrees. As a conservative, I am in favor of a debate regarding the merits of medical marijuana. I am also in favor of separating those convicted of possession alone from the rest of the prison population and providing them with real medical help for their addiction problems. I am not in favor of legalization or decriminalization.
In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:32 AM
Malcolm, this link refers to help for an extreme and rare epileptic disorder. Furthermore, the children in this situation are not given joints to puff but a distilled solution that it is not psychoactive and at least no more addictive than the pharmaceutical drugs that were unnsuccessful in treating these children. Using this beneficial, limited application of chemically altered cannabis as an argument for legalization or decriminalization is absurd.
Double-voting, I agree. But it is unfortunately fairly easy to be double registered. I have tried several times to have my name removed from the list of registered voters in the state I lived in 8 years ago. Every time my mother-in-law votes (same last name, near each other on register that you must sign), she calls me and tells me that I am still registered to vote there. Am I supposed to not register to vote in my current home district because the last state I lived in ignores my requests?
So... 1) This group that liberals say will be disenfranchised does nothing but sit around all day in a home that is not theirs (I mean not even leased to them), or... 2) This group that liberals say will be disenfranchised already have picture ID, but the liberals are (at best) looking for something to whine about, or... 3) I have been discriminated against my entire life by being required to show ID. (which I doubt) Choose your scenario. None of them is a good argument against requiring photo ID to allow registered voters to cast their ballots.
1 - 10 Next