“Season passes to Disney parks are now around $600 per person (for a family of four, you're looking at $2400 for tickets alone ... that doesn't include hotels, food, parking, etc.). And along with the prices, they've raised the maximum capacity at many of their parks, leaving most people paying huge sums of money just to fight crowds all day long.
This year, I bought a season pass to Six Flags that cost me less than $100. It includes parking, and is good at every Six Flags theme park across the nation. I have a better time at Six Flags, too.
I hope that America soon gets over its Disney obsession.”
“If the Republican party was still the liberal party, I'd be a Republican. The fact of the matter is that the conservative party used to be the Democrats, and the liberal party used to be the Republicans (hence the reason why original KKK members were Democrats, and they are all nearly Republicans now). This goes far beyond party affiliation -- this is liberalism versus conservatism, and conservatives have *always* been the ones in support of slavery and bias.
You're welcome for the further knowledge.”
billbb on May 2, 2013 at 10:10:34
“You are certainly correct both that the Democrats were once the conservative party, and that the parties have, in effect, switched memberships. Through the 1890s and early 1900s, the Republicans were the progressives, and the Democrats were the party of big business. That changed through around World War I, with the parties attaining their current bases through the 1920s.
But what is far more important to understand the current state of affairs is the fact that the Republicans have been on a Dogma Cleansing push since at least the Reagan administration, seeking to label any Republican who is not a "true believer" and banish them to the outer regions of darkness. Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater could no long pass that litmus test, because they all held beliefs that would make them heretics.
Republicans continue in their belief that the current highly polarized state of affairs is somehow the fault of the Democrats. When confronted with this, it is easy to point out that the Democrats have nationally-prominent members who are both liberal and conservative. If someone can point out a nationally prominent Republican in any elected position now, it would be an astonishing find. Republican liberals, once the whole Rockefeller wing of the party, are now extinct. If they were not so unscientific, they might have applied for listing on the endangered species list, before it was too late.”
“No, you're not getting it. Pregnancy is a parasitic relationship, but women can make of it what they want. I've been through a pregnancy, and actually have a very close bond with my son. I just have the mental capacity to recognize that my experience won't be every woman's experience -- and that it's not my business, either.
The "just don't have sex" argument is asinine. As I said before, a woman's bodily autonomy isn't erased the moment she chooses to have sex. Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy, and consent to pregnancy does not equal consent to remain pregnant.”
“It is very much a parasitic relationship. And adding emotional baggage doesn't change that fact. Some women see it as a happy occasion that they gladly consent to. Others don't.
Many people have sex without the intent to give up their bodies to another person. And even though we know "full well how that happens," nobody loses their bodily rights just because they choose to have sex. Sorry -- a woman's body belongs to her, and nobody else has a right to use it or live inside of it if she doesn't want it there.
See, sex is about more than procreation. We have evolved to use it for multiple purposes, including human bonding. It's the closest act that two humans can share. And what you're suggesting is that people should just abstain from that unless they want kids, which is asinine and unhelpful.”
katherinetg on Apr 12, 2013 at 03:35:53
“That was a very bizarre response. You speak of sex reverently....yet the creation of another human being as a mere inconvenience and parasitic.
And abstinence isn't the only way to avoid pregnancy (and you should definitely avoid pregnancy!)
Here's an analogy for you. Let's say that you're driving and accidentally hit a young child. You took precautions, but didn't see her in time. She's not dead, but will require a blood donation and a kidney, otherwise she will die. I guess you believe that the government has a right to make you donate them, right? After all, it's because of your actions that she is dying, and if you don't want this responsibility, just don't drive. You knew the possible consequences. And that little girl didn't even have a chance up against your car. Right? Or, on the other hand, do you believe the government NEVER has a right to commandeer your body, regardless of who might need it to survive?”
“No. Nobody's right to life includes a right to use someone else's body against their will. Everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, meaning that the government cannot force you to allow another person access to your body. And a woman doesn't lose her bodily rights just because she chooses to have sex, no matter how much you disagree with it. You're on the losing end of this battle.
It's interesting, though, how you bring up sex, because it makes your real motives clear. Do you believe in rape exceptions? If not, then your "just don't have sex" argument goes out the window, as raped women *don't* choose to have sex (but you'd still be willing to make them slaves to their biology). However, if you do believe in rape exceptions, then what you're really saying is that women who don't choose sex should have their rights recognized, but women who do choose sex should not. In the end, this is all about sex, and a sadistic level of control.”
There is no other condition in the world in which we don't use the best available technology to fight nature and make life better for ourselves. Eye glasses, cancer treatments, Viagra, cosmetic surgery, and diabetic insulin injections all fall into this category (along with many, many, many other things). But women having control over their own bodies? No, no, we can't have that -- women's bodies apparently belong to the government, or to fetuses to use and live in as they please, or to anyone but the woman herself.
To Republicans like Ryan, a woman's consent is not a thing.”
“Your party will never win the women's vote -- and, thus, a national election -- so long as you think you have a right to control our reproductive lives, and tell us if and when someone else is allowed to live inside our bodies.
The good thing for us is that your party doesn't seem to learn, so go on about your merry way with this thinking. We cannot wait for 2014, and then 2016. You are awakening a powerful sleeping beauty in us.”
katherinetg on Apr 12, 2013 at 02:07:31
“"If and when someone else is allowed to live inside our bodies".......is that some kind of parasitic human that brings its luggage and moves in without an invitation while you are sleeping? Or is this a child that you created while knowing full well how that happens?”
Bob Vance87 on Apr 12, 2013 at 01:24:24
“What your kind doesnt seem to understand is that this is not a womens right. The child doesnt get a chance. Its quite simple if a women doesnt want a child dont have sex. ”
“Well, this is no surprise. The Republican party doesn't want an educated populace. They want a dumbed-down, minimum wage-earning populace who stays in line. Investing in the nation's best and brightest students wouldn't mesh with their overall goals.”
“I -- and many others -- post the bodily autonomy argument quite often on public forums. It's actually quite a strong argument in favor of abortion rights. You can call it selfish all you want -- but you cannot deny a human being their bodily rights in favor of another.
Do you have any real arguments against it? Or do you prefer to continue on with ad hominems and other logical fallacies (those in the anti-choice camp rarely venture out of that territory, so don't worry -- we're used to it). It's okay -- take your time. We've been waiting a while for an actual argument that stands up.”
“But modern thought catches up in more ways than one. See, at this point, it doesn't necessarily matter if life begins at conception. The question is whether that new life -- or any life at all -- has a right to use someone else's body for their survival. The question is whether the government has a right to force people to donate their bodies for the sake of other people's lives. Would you ever want to be forced by the government to donate blood or organs so that someone else can live? If not, seriously reconsider the premise of what you're arguing -- the pro-choice stance is that women have a right to their own bodies, and to remove any life they don't want there, regardless of when that life started.”
pplepeu9 on Apr 7, 2013 at 23:55:58
“And you win the prize! That is the sickest, most utterly self-absorbed argument I have ever heard presented in defense of the monstrosity of abortion. I am not a bit surprised that you would not dare to post such rot on a fresh comment page as you would have been ripped to shreds. But you have enlightened me as to the pure evil that is really at the heart of the liberal love affair with killing babies. You really should expand your micro bio. It should read "I think only of myself, therefore I am Liberal".”
“Um, no. You have difficulty picking up inferences, apparently. What part of bodily servitude don't you understand? Outlawing abortion is requiring bodily servitude. Outlawing abortion is big government in the lives of every single woman in the nation. Or don't you see women as actual people?”
“Or the right to use someone else's body for the sake of your own survival. I'm sure you'll feel the same way when the government demands that you offer up your blood or organs so that someone else can live. Right to life indeed...”
sansrascal on Apr 6, 2013 at 17:58:02
“Where is the government making people give blood to save organs?? Just like a lib that cannot think and makes up whatevers of such stupid remarks. Government demands? Seriously it is liberals that want to give the government such powers and not the conservatives who argue against big government. Do you really understand your own politics?? I say not. socailism is all about big government and big government powers.”
“They'll also need to start taking samples of every woman's monthly period, to make sure that no manslaughter has occurred without the woman knowing about it. So many of these fertilized eggs are flushed out of the body before even attaching to the uterine lining, so the government should figure out what kind of justice needs to be done in that situation, and how the woman should be punished. Or, you know, maybe they just need to outlaw non-procreative sex altogether and make women wear chastity belts until they're safely inside a marriage (which seems to be the ultimate goal with these people sometimes...).”
“No, it's not as simple as that. Comprehensive sex education and birth control will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies (which is always a good thing), but the uncertain nature of this issue means there will always be a need for legal abortion. And any law that attempts to make women slaves to their biology can -- and should -- be struck down in a court of law. Making abortion illegal isn't going to eliminate abortion -- it will only increase the number of illegal abortions performed.”