Jump to content
TedderVision

Shiggy

CH Republicans
  • Content count

    2,613
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Everything posted by Shiggy

  1. Character Name: Ralph Labradoodle Home State: Idaho Previous Job: Law (Lawyer, Judge, Law Enforcement, etc) Date of Birth: 07/04/1960 Race / Ethnicity: Other (please state in Bio section below) Religion: Other Wealth: Upper Middle Class Gender: Male Sexuality: Heterosexual Are you married?: Yes How many children do you have?: 6 Ralph Labradoodle grew up in Pocatello Idaho form immigrant parents from Puerto Rico. He attended Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and spent two years as a Mormon missionary in Chile, from 1987 to 1989. Labradoodle returned to BYU and received a B.A. in 1992, in Spanish with an emphasis in Latin American literature. He was admitted to the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and received his J.D. in 1995. Married in 1991, Labradoodle relocated to his wife's home state of Idaho and practiced law and immigration law in private practice from 1995 until his election to the Idaho House of Representatives in 2006. In 2010 he was elected speaker of the house. In 2016 he was elected to the U.S House of Representatives representing Idaho's 1st District. View full character
  2. Shiggy

    Ralph Labradoodle

    Ralph Labradoodle grew up in Pocatello Idaho form immigrant parents from Puerto Rico. He attended Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and spent two years as a Mormon missionary in Chile, from 1987 to 1989. Labradoodle returned to BYU and received a B.A. in 1992, in Spanish with an emphasis in Latin American literature. He was admitted to the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and received his J.D. in 1995. Married in 1991, Labradoodle relocated to his wife's home state of Idaho and practiced law and immigration law in private practice from 1995 until his election to the Idaho House of Representatives in 2006. In 2010 he was elected speaker of the house. In 2016 he was elected to the U.S House of Representatives representing Idaho's 1st District.
  3. Shiggy

    TECHNICAL REQUESTS

    If you need masking for a forum or have a technical issue. Post it here.
  4. Shiggy

    VOTING CALCULATOR

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18SKQkkGxdhpWOJDCgd3euj7TxYpJkxnJEIBODBRLjdg/edit#gid=0
  5. Shiggy

    Govsim Personas

    This American Dad episode where all 200 of Roger's personas got me thinking about all the characters that I have used in govsims. I thought it would be fun if everyone could list all the characters that they have used.
  6. Shiggy

    TECHNICAL REQUESTS

    done
  7. Shiggy

    In Game Events per schedule cycle

    @Doomhammer @Phillip Huffines
  8. Shiggy

    In Game Events per schedule cycle

    I am moving this to the cloak room. The cloak room is the area for talking about the game
  9. Shiggy

    I'm Back

    Glad to have you back. I am moving this to general discussion instead of admin announcements.
  10. Shiggy

    Govsim Personas

    I could not find all of them because some of the govsims pages have since gone down..so some of it is from memory. Also......I recycled a lot of the personas across several govsims so there was a lot of repetition. William Rossi (AGS) Darren Hackenberg (AGS) Mike Litoris (AGS) Hugh Jass (AGS) Henry Jensen (AGS) (NGS) Jon Kim (AGS) (NGS) Chris Cameron (AGS) (NGS) Guy Marsh (AGS) (NGS) Max Cooper (media) (NGS) Alan Palmer (NGS) Robert King (NGS) Admin on NGS (username Shiggy) break from govsims for 10 years H.E Pennypacker Tony Rossi (recycle from AGS) Alan Freedom (media)
  11. Shiggy

    Im Back

    And once again....Welcome home.
  12. Shiggy

    Im Back

    just the scandal part. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdScpMXRg-UYzGObwww1KhCUhb8G6cP_agJyYvYXut2xL7GzA/viewform?embedded=true
  13. IN DEFENSE OF KEVIN WILLIAMSON........SORT OF Today The Atlantic fired well-known conservative writer Kevin Williamson after he, in a podcast, DARED to suggest that abortion should be considered the same under the law as far as premeditated murder……….even going as far as allowing a woman who had an abortion to be eligible for the death penalty. Now that is a lot to take in so I will explain my agreements and objections for each part of that claim. As far as treating abortion as any other homicide premeditated or not…I agree. It is intellectually dishonest to deny that Truth even though I see the supposedly “pro life” organizations backpedaling after any politician commentator or celebrity makes such a claim. We saw this play out in exactly the same way when (then candidate) Trump was asked a similar question on a Chris Matthews town hall and came to the same conclusion. I also wrote a similar piece (after scratching my eyes out) because the pro life movement punted the ball and sided with the pro-aborts against such a conclusion. Now my background is in philosophy so I will show you the syllogism and the problem with making such a claim. Bear with me, I will do my best to explain it even to those without a background in syllogisms, logic and/or philosophy. You cannot say Killing another human being (including the life in the womb) is murder (by definition) Premeditated murder by definition is planning a murder or hiring someone to commit murder While also saying A woman who premeditative plans to and does kill her child (through the help of the doctor) in the womb should not be punished for murder 1 (premeditative murder) under the law. To say this becomes a self contradiction......what George Orwell would call "Doublethink". Supposedly “pro life” people try and make this ridiculous claim through impossible mental gymnastics. Either ALL premeditated murder is bad and should be treated equally under the law OR ALL premeditated murder is NOT bad and should not be punished at all. You cannot say that some premeditated murders are bad but some should just be conveniently ignored for political reasons and there inlies the problem with the supposed “pro life” crowd. They are too worried about how it will look politically even if they completely contradict their own position. That is why every time a TRULY pro-life commentator or politician exposes this paradox, they freak out. Main stream “pro lifers” live in a state of political nihilism where abortion is murder…….unless it polls badly. People who get abortions committed murder……unless they might lead to being called “anti-women” or “waging a war on women” The other peculiar aspect of such an occurrence is that the LEFT is the usually the one that points out the intellectual honesty of Trump or Williamson (as seen here) in their claims against the mainline pro-lifers and conservatives. It is not the left that is so scandalized by Williamson, they already find nothing wrong with murdering a child in the womb. It is the neo-conservatives and the neo-pro lifers who cry foul. If you truly believe that abortion is by definition murder and that those who actively plan and pay in advance to have their wife, neighbor, boss killed should be punished under the law, then it is impossible to then turn around and say that a woman (knowing that a human baby is in her womb) who makes premeditated plans to hire a doctor to kill that child should not be treated the same under the law. But aren't women the victims? Why punish them the same as the abortionist? No actually they are not…….unless they are raped, they are not the victims in any way whatsoever and even so, those cases only make up less than 1% of all abortions. And even so, the woman being wrong in rape does not morally excuse another wrong being committed against the baby or morally excuse the wrong being done against the baby. That would be like a mother beating her kid because the husband beat her. It does not follow that the mother should be able to take her anger/pain out on the child because the father took it out on her. It is impossible to somehow split hairs and say that women who pay for and get an abortion are not guilty of intentionally paying to kill another human being…….the same as if I payed a hitman to kill my non-existent child/wife or anyone else. Even if I was coerced by a group to participate in a plot to commit murder and may not have entirely been my free will……..or had a gun put to my head and told to kill someone else or be killed, I am still guilty of aiding in the crime or still guilty of murder despite being threatened myself. Saying, I was just following orders did not clear the Nazi war criminals of guilt. And even if I did say that those women who were coerced were NOT AS responsible because of manipulation/coercion,they would still hold responsibility (even if slightly less). Plus, I would point out that those cases of extreme coercion by others or because of situation (like rape/incest) make up far far less than the majority if not being only a small percentage of all instances of abortions. Now moving on to his comments on the death penalty, I have to make quite a few qualifications to make. 1) I think abortion is by definition murder. 2) Anyone who gets an abortion planning to do so ahead of time has committed premeditated murder by definition. Do I think that ALL women who get abortions should face a capital case?.........no probably not. I think the local DA (prosecutor), the judge and the jury should look at the facts of the case and decide whether it is merited. Do I think there COULD be instances where a capital case could apply to a women who got an abortion...maybe for the 15th time?...........Yes, i do....in the same way as a mother who drowns all 5 of her kids in a bathtub should face a capital case. To give a blanket statement about no women being murderers in all cases is impossible if you truly believe it is murder. If abortion is murder then you cannot make exceptions without contradicting your statement that abortion is murder. That is why I cringe and gnash my teeth when I saw so many in the pro life movement capitulate to this exception. It is equally as dangerous as those who say they are pro life but then argue that there should be exceptions for rape, incest etc. Donald Trump was right when he first said that there has to be some sort of punishment for a mother who has an abortion. It is consistent with being truly pro life and a true sense of justice.
  14. Shiggy

    TECHNICAL REQUESTS

    Can you give me specific names? For leadership the rule is 7 days For everyone else it is simply once per session.......and since the session has not ended, nobody falls into that category yet.
  15. I use the term anti-abortion instead of "pro life" in order to specifically focus on the issue of abortion and avoid linguistic semantics. I believe that life starts at conception as defined both by science and metaphysics. As such I believe that no human being can be denied the basic right to life that is guaranteed under the U.S constitution and basic natural rights.
  16. Shiggy

    I Am Anti-Abortion....Change My Mind

    I am glad we can at least agree on 6 weeks. That is definitely a start.
  17. Shiggy

    These debates accomplish nothing: change my mind

    I disagree. I think it is important to talk about the issue even if we disagree. This nation (I mean the U.S specifically) has become so divided because people refuse to at least talk about the issues......instead they hide in their echo-chambers of like minded people. I think it is important (even if they only end up agreeing to disagree) to talk about such issues in order to understand and truly debate the merits of the issues without all the rhetoric and grandstanding.
  18. Shiggy

    I Am Anti-Abortion....Change My Mind

    I guess it being scientifically untrue would render it invalid as an argument.
  19. Shiggy

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    I believe literally that the 2nd amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed upon by the government with full or partial bans of weapons. Change my mind.
  20. Shiggy

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    Also to the "only meant militias" argument.......I would counter with Federalist Papers #s 29 and 46 both of which clearly that the intent of the founding fathers was for citizens to be ready to fight by allowing citizens to own firearms and then be ready if we were attacked. They even differentiate a formal government or state military from a "militia" which they define as private citizens with privately owned weapons.
  21. Shiggy

    Posts deemed off topic/Inappropriate

    Will be sent here still visable but not filling up a CMM threat
  22. Shiggy

    Posts deemed off topic/Inappropriate

    Not appropriate for this section @Bluto. If you are here to change my mind, then stick to the topic.............But if you want to editorialize about how bad a CA I am, go do it in the general discussion thread. Consider yourself warned.
  23. In the past couple years, I have talked to/debated many of my millennial counterparts on the left. Now being nearly 30 and have considered myself "conservative" for 4 or 5 years now, but before that, I was very much a leftist SJW like the people with whom I am now debating. The most common response I have received in such a debate was that I simply do not understand them( much less their arguments/points of view) and therefore that is why I cannot agree with them when it comes to political topics. I almost started to believe it to be true. Perhaps I was simply not understanding them. I would try so hard to see it form their point of view, but I just cannot......especially when half of their arguments consisted entirely of logical fallacies. No matter how hard I tried, I just could not understand it fully. Then it sort of dawned on me............I used to be just like that when I was younger. In fact, I distinctly remember debating my conservative friends on Facebook over many issues including socialism, communism as well as guns......Yes....... I know......hard to believe now. I even used to be the biggest fan of The Young Turks, but now 10 years later, I enjoy listening to Stephen Crowder, Ben Shapiro, Paul Joseph Watson and Jordan Peterson. Thanks to the fact that most of my thoughts and ideas from that era of my life were recorded through Facebook and social media, I was able to remember a lot of what I said back then. I was able to look back on it and really read through my arguments now that I have a COMPLETELY different worldview from that of my 17 year old self. I went back to look at things I had posted between 2006 and 2011 (which were my most leftist years before I became a conservative) It was somewhat surreal, almost like it was a different person who I did not recognize except at certain moments where I could recognize a common catchphrase, style of argumentation or snark comment which I knew could only have come from me. It was almost as if I had gone back in time and was speaking to myself as a teenager (except without accidentally becoming my own father........ew Marty.......just .....gross.) Reading what I wrote and thought back then did help me to better understand what I believed and why, yet I still was not convinced by it enough to change my mind back. In fact all I could think of was the great irony of reading the responses by my conservative friends......all of which now closely resemble the responses I make to more liberal political arguments.......especially my "Change My Mind" threads. Maybe in the future I might go through some of them and post a full rebuttal of myself.
  24. Lately I have seen much ink spilled over the issues of immigration and DACA. Most of all, I have seen several newspapers, including my own hometown newspaper, making a comparison deporting illegal aliens and the illegal and unconstitutional internment of American Citizens of Japanese descent (HERE HERE HERE and HERE To start, I will, as I have already stated above, that the internment of American Citizens simply because they are of the same heritage as the nation with which we are at war, was and still is 100% unconstitutional and illegal. I cannot stress the point enough that there is absolutely NO WAY in which the government can suspend the civil liberties of an American Citizen or even a non citizen living in our nation in the name of "national security. Whether it was the Alien And Sedition Act during the first world war, or the internment of American citizens of Japanese Heritage during the second world war, or the suspension of the bill of rights (especially the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th amendments) in the Patriot Act after 9-11, ALL of those attempts to use "national security" as an excuse to suspend civil liberties is unconstitutional and wrong. And might I add that Korematsu v. United States was wrong in allowing the constitution to be suspended even during war and those justices were an affront to the oath that they took to uphold the constitution. Now then.........When taking the issue of internment and comparing it to the deportation of peoples who have illegally entered the United States, the argument based on this outrageous comparison runs into several flaws: First of all, the comparison is outright false on its face because the illegals who are being deported are legally arrested with warrants and given due process in court to prove that they are in the United States legally. The Americans of Japanese Heritage were not given any due process and all of their civil rights were suspended at the whim of the government.........a democrat named Franklin D Roosevelt. I would agree if Ice were imply rounding up people and kidnapping them....but that is not at all what happens. So therefore to make such a comparison is quite purposefully dishonest bearing on fraudulent. Secondly, the comparison is ridiculously over dramatic in seeking to find the worst atrocity with which to compare to the thing that you dislike.........much akin to calling any policy, thought or opinion that you do not like as "literally Hitler", even though you know that making such a comparison is frivolously dishonest and false. Thirdly, Every nation has immigration laws......YES....EVEN MEXICO. GO ahead and look it up for yourself. You will be surprised to find that Mexico actually is much more harsh in dealing with the constant stream of illegal immigrants from the lower part of Central America and South America...........Yet Nancy Pelosi would have you believe that simply deporting illegals back to their country of origin was the biggest atrocity since concentration camps. Also, I would point out that Barack Obama deported over 2 million people and I never heard him being criticized compared to fascism much less FDR. Lastly, in the same way that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Elizabeth (Running Squaw Who Look Like Paleface) Warren used the rhetoric of "Unless you want PEOPLE TO DIE!!!!" over the healthcare debate in order to bully everyone else into agreeing with them for fear of being labeled as the John Wayn Gacy of healthcare by a witch, a gargoyle and an indian (all they are missing is the black guy in the Castro fatigues and the biker guy and they could get the village people back together), so to do they use the rhetorical tactic of accusing those (by extension of their belief) who agrees with deporting illegals of being a racist/fascist dictator......who in this case is Franklin D Roosevelt since he was the one who interred all those Americans of Japanese heritage. If I could give one piece of advice to the left when talking about tough political issues (especially divisive ones).........If you have a valid argument to why you are right on an issue, then present your argument and make the case for why we should listen to you. Don't hide behind appeals to emotion and emotional blackmail in order to bully people into believe what you believe. In fact if anything, I will have a HARDER time listening to what you believe if all you do is paint people who do not think the same way as being the devil, or Hitler, or racists or fascists. That is how you will get nobody to listen to you in your pompous and self-righteous ivory tower.
  25. Shiggy

    I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

    @Cal Palmer Perhaps I do not understand fully. What was the legal objection you were making? That it is legal to buy AR15s?
×