Not a YouTube fan? Watch it here: https://vid.me/xZDX
Not a YouTube fan? Watch it here: https://vid.me/xZDX
If a Colorado initiative gets its way 49 other states are going to be looking like anarcho-capitalist havens. Initiative 29 or the “Preservation of a Natural childhood” could make selling smartphones, tablets, and any sort of handheld wireless technology to anyone aged 13 and younger illegal which is anything but natural.
The title attempts to conjure up delightful images of a childhood free from responsibility, being driven to hockey practice, playing late into the night, and the parental figures providing all of life’s necessities. Initiative 29 capitalizes on feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of personal advancements.
However, this image is very unnatural. Neither electricity or cars are part of a natural childhood, and as comedian Jim Gaffigan puts it neither is using the bathroom indoors. We are surrounded by the unnatural. Colorado Initiative 29 capitalizes on your feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of positive advancements.
Expectantly the announcement has raised concern over state paternalism, but there are much more meaningful and deeper issues at play. Advocates are overlooking huge benefits of these technologies and are seeing smartphones as the cause of idleness rather than as the symptom. They are turning families and businesses into criminals overnight.
This is one of those topics that is going to bring about a lot of strong opinions in both directions. Like, on one hand, this technology is, in fact, the future of our nation and these innovations are moving fast. The kids in this area are going to be terribly behind the times without at least some limited access, and will be behind their peers when they leave for college. On the other hand, these kids may have a leg up in developing personal relationships and handling people face to face instead of forcing people to only communicate with them via text.
We all know, however, how this is actually going to work out, and how this is all going to be a useless mute point. Let’s say the law passes. Great! Now mom goes in and buys a phone, tells the sales person the phone is for her, and when she gets home she passes it off to Little Johnny anyway and tells him not to look at porn, now leave mommy alone while she has some wine.
The same as it is right now. Because when is the last time you saw a 13 year old buy their own $900 iPhone anyway? The only thing that is changing here is that parents just won’t tell the sales people that the phone is for their kid. It isn’t actually going to accomplish anything.
To which this weirdo replied with:
What is wrong with this woman?
In case you don’t know, Charlie Gard is the baby in the UK who the government denied a trip to the USA for treatment for, despite the parents raising the money to do so.
Why is it that only people like her give a crap about the race of the child? 99% of people who saw this story saw “sick baby.” We didn’t see “white baby” or “British baby.” We saw “sick baby.” And sick babies typically elicit a response from people. No one wants babies to be sick. Everyone wants to help sick babies. This baby could have been any race on Earth and the response would be the same if the story was playing out the same way.
Does this nut job want to see sick white babies? Does she get joy from that? Does it make her soul get the warm fuzzies when she hears a white baby might die? If so, what’s all this super gun control stuff? Does she know white people get shot, too? Does she know other races shoot people, too?
I’m sorry, but we’re never going to advance race relations unless we stop this crap. A person’s race is not their only defining feature. When babies are sick, no one gives a crap about their race. When someone does something heroic, no one cares about their race. When someone does something incredible, no one cares about their race.
Besides people like Shannon Watts. Because she can’t see people beyond their race.
That’s racist, Shannon.
According to the Washington Post, Raskin’s bill would activate a probe into whether President Trump has been too far “incapacitated” to continue as the leader of the free world.
The 25th Amendment deals mainly with presidential succession, denoting that the vice president would take over for a deceased or removed president, and so on.
Raskin said his legislation would focus on Section 4 of the 1967 amendment, which reads in part:
“Whenever the vice president and a majority of … bod[ies] such as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro-tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”
Raskin said he is concerned that “something is seriously wrong” with Trump, citing a “sustained pattern of behavior” and several “errant and seemingly deranged tweets.”
“It certainly doesn’t feel like the ship is on an even course right now,” he said.
This desperation is starting to smell funny.
Let’s face it, this is yet another item the Dems have been threatening since Trump was elected. It appears they may try to move forward on it.
New rule: if you pull this stunt and fail, you get removed from office. Sound good?
We could support it with clips of Nancy Pelosi trying to make speeches, Maxine Waters claiming 700 billion people are going to die if Obamacare is repealed, the tweets of most of these people, and the eagerness with which they jump at breaking laws with things like sanctuary cities for criminal aliens.
Again, this is going nowhere. Above everything else, Mike Pence would need to sign off on it. I don’t see that happening.
I’ll say this, when it comes time for electing these people into another term of office, if you sit out the vote, you are part of the problem.
The House Armed Services Committee has rejected a plan to require women between the ages of 18 and 26 to enter the Selective Service System, Military Times reported.
The rejection put the issue on hold until a review on the entire draft system is conducted. The decision followed up the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
Rep. Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, and other lawmakers pushed for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have ordered women to sign up for potential involuntary military service with the Selective Service System 30 days after turning 18 years old. All men ages 18 to 26 are required to register.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican from Texas, opposed the amendment because a review of the Selective Service System is forthcoming and new changes wouldn’t be necessary.
So what’s in this review? When is it going to start? And why can’t we get women signed up for the draft while we wait however long for that to take place? Are we considering doing away with it? If we are, in the meantime, we can get women signed up for it and if they do away with it, great, they’re cut loose just like the men.
But it seems to me that even with the pending review, men are still signing up for the draft. How come not women?
If you want equality, you take the good with the bad. You don’t just get equality of privilege. You get straight across equality. If the draft is good enough for the men, it should be good enough for the women, too. And if we, for some reason, do reinstate the draft, why should only the men be torn from their families involuntarily? This is what equality looks like.
Don’t get me wrong. I do, in fact, support women in combat. I know a lot of folks don’t, but I do. However, if you want into combat, you get into the draft, too. I’m sorry. That’s how it works, ladies.
There’s nothing strange about it. The media has a liberal bias, everyone knows that. To top it off, the box they have created for women is one of being very liberal. So, of course, the only valid first female president would be a female because there is no such thing is a female on the right.
And aside from all of that is the desire for the left to “make history” above helping the country. I wouldn’t vote for any of those women. I don’t feel like having a president who decides I get my rights taken away for my own good. Or preached to about how privileged I am. Or told that I have to buy things that I don’t want and that doesn’t benefit me in any way. Or tells me that by the pure nature of me being female, I am automatically a victim. Or tells me they believe in freedom of speech or gun rights or economic freedom “but….” Oprah would remind us all daily about how racist we all are, so we can expect further division. Well, to be fair to Oprah… every single one of these women would work hard at further division in the USA.
No thanks. I’ll take a hard pass on all of them.
I’m… not even sure what she just said here. I’ve watched this clip literally about seven times, and I’m not sure what she’s saying here.
Does she think there are 700 billion people living in Kentucky?! Does she think 700 billion people in the USA are going to lose Medicaid?
Does she think there are 700 billion people on the entire planet?!
There are about 7.5 billion people on Earth. Click here to watch the clock.
So I am honestly not sure what she is talking about here. And why are our politicians so insane about grossly exaggerating everything? It wasn’t that long ago that Terry McAuliffe tried to tell us we lose 95 million Americans a day to gun violence. (On a bizarre side note, I just spent 20 minutes trying to find a link to that story. WTF?! Search it on Google. You’ll find it eventually, but you have to sift through all the salon.com articles and HuffPo articles about the horrors of guns first. And I know I posted a link on Twitter to this story, but damn if I could find it)
Check yourself, Maxine. Your crazy is getting out of hand.