politics thread

[j_y19]

i just posted it

Not sure why it was directed at me. What post did you take issue with?

 

[Stymietee]

(UPDATED) Candace Owens suspended from Facebook after she writes, 'Black America must wake up to the great liberal hoax'

When will a liberal get his or her account suspended .

I suspect that will happen when there's clear evidence of lying for profit as is the case with this charlatan. While I don't agree with limiting free speech in an open forum, history teaches us that McCarthyism is a very dangerous form of it. (Didn't they reinstate her?)

 

[Stymietee]

It's funny the democrats. The have no problem killing innocent babies, but they be damned if that cold blooded killer on death should die. As for republicans... they say allow all babies the right to live and perhaps grow to be prominent citizens but fry that son of a bitch if he turns killer. So question: Which makes more sense to you?

Neither! So let me ask you a question, what's the difference between these two on the same subject... hypocrite (right) vs hypocrite (left). YOU make the call!

 

[Stymietee]

She's absolutely correct and if she wasn't clear on the subject, I'm saying it in those exact words. Christians are creepy and extremely far right hypocrites whether they are democrats or republicans. Call in religious hating if that makes you feel better.

 

[Stymietee]

Levin on target

Although not impossible, that would be a first for Levin!

 

[Stymietee]

So now we threaten Supreme Court justices ?

Lying to congress is a federal crime, period, full-stop! They both stated that they will uphold precedent and now each has the opportunity to either refuse to hear the abortion case or vote in favor of... upholding precedent.

Think about what you're writing here, in every court in the land there's a threat to punish if one lies to the same. It is not the threat that matters, rather the inclination to lie in the first place.

 

[Stymietee]

This is how I laugh at people bashing fox . Chris Wallace (certainly liberal ) and Sheppard Smith is as anti Trump as you get

Wallace and Smith are probably the only two serious news professionals in the entire network (Fox) They have hit Democrats and Republicans alike for their half assed positions. Considering what Fox has become, (state run television) I'm genuinely surprised that both still work for this company. My best guess is that they still offer some level of credibility that escapes all of the rest of them.

 

[gkekoa]

The abortion debate is absolutely this simple:

Assholes on the right feel like they have the right to dictate to everybody their personal beliefs on this particular subject, but refuse to recognize that:

a) they are hypocritically violating any number of their own standard issue talking points (less government intervention, more personal choice), and
b) when the situation is reversed on any other number of positions (climate change, 2A, tax cuts, welfare, capital punishment, etc.) they absolutely cannot hear another point of view - let alone the passing of bullshit laws to overturn settled precedent.

The fuckwads who passed that Talibama law are all old white men, who are clearly the least capable demographic of understanding the impact of abortion of anybody in the state they “govern.”

Its an insult to humanity that the morons on the right even feel like they have to right to dictate what women should do with their bodies.

Why does the left get to define murder and not be called assholes?

A) there is nothing hypocritical about defending the rights of others. The “right” doesn’t believe in lawlessness. They believe in natural rights and minimal government.

B) when the situation is reversed? It is never reversed. Climate change is not proven science. The second amendment is an enumerated right. Welfare is literal extortion. Capital punishment is called “justice,” and very Constitutional. We always hear another POV...we engage in discussions. You are the one calling us assholes.

As for established precedent, please read what was actually decided in Roe. As Alabama law, you do realize it was a woman who signed it into law? The impact of abortion is quite obvious...death of innocents.

Nobody is deciding what a woman does with her body...we are defending the body that is inside of her. What if the “right” decided to sit by and allow slavery? Doing the right thing may involve things the left says is none of our business because the left wants to keep things like slavery because it is about power.

 

[ehb5]

Trump approval at 51%, winning millennials, trusted more than Democrats on economy

POLL: Trump’s Approval Numbers Top Obama’s During Same Point In His First Term

President Trump & Gallup -- Approval Rating Ticks Up to New High of 46 Percent | National Review

Rasmussen polls

yeah... Trump has a higher approval rating than Obama did at this point in his presidency.... an incredibly low bar I understand.

Still believe when its all said and done and we have moved on from PC culture that Obama will be unanimously viewed as the worst modern day president of all time and this 1:2 punch of Obama > Trump will go down in history as a really really shitty run

Did you even click on my link? Cause it really seems like you didn't.

If it helps you...50.9 (Obama's) is a larger number than 42.0 (Trump's).

Like if you have to defend Trump from time to time fine but at least don't blatantly make shit up.

 

[ehb5]

Because simply stating what you claim it be isn’t sufficient. Explain your stance and allowances.

I mean... I'm not here to meet your qualifications.

If you (after previously acknowledging I was conservative) need a dissertation on my beliefs to believe that I do in fact believe what I say then that's on you.

 

[ehb5]

The abortion debate is absolutely this simple:

Assholes on the right feel like they have the right to dictate to everybody their personal beliefs on this particular subject, but refuse to recognize that:

a) they are hypocritically violating any number of their own standard issue talking points (less government intervention, more personal choice), and
b) when the situation is reversed on any other number of positions (climate change, 2A, tax cuts, welfare, capital punishment, etc.) they absolutely cannot hear another point of view - let alone the passing of bullshit laws to overturn settled precedent.

The fuckwads who passed that Talibama law are all old white men, who are clearly the least capable demographic of understanding the impact of abortion of anybody in the state they “govern.”

Its an insult to humanity that the morons on the right even feel like they have to right to dictate what women should do with their bodies.

a - government intervention to protect humans right to life seems pretty reasonable

b - I'm not sure what arguments you are referring to specifically but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not abortion should or should not be legal

 

[ehb5]

More leftist BS

I mean... the science denier one is pretty spot on.

 

[ehb5]

Always trying to play the victim card there arent ya?

 

[Stymietee]

QUOTE="gkekoa, post: 13284453, member: 5837"]I did put that but you have to read more than a mere blurb. When I am speaking of humans, I figured you would know, and I wouldn’t have to spell out, the context in which I am n again, you don’t believe in context.

This isn’t what you said. You said developing. A 17 year old is still developing...there is no context there. You are either a developing, developed, or dying human.

You can claim definitions to be whatever you want. You can also be wrong as much as you want. All living organisms on the face of the planet fall into specific categories in science. A fetus is a Homo Sapien...unless you can show me it isn’t scientifically.[/QUOTE]

In context or not in context "taking of a life" even in the manner in which you intended it to be doesn't cover the subject at hand, since it isn't a 'life." by definition scientifically. (beginning of, or first stage of, is not the same thing as an actual life)

News flash, there is no such thing as a fully developed person, we continuously grow up until the moment of death no matter how that death occurs.

I get it, you want to turn this into an ethical/ moral argument and I'm not going to play that nonsensical game. You can have your moral opinion and I'll support and defend your right to the same. Ethically, there's no objectivity or rationale that supports this group think position beyond belief. It is interesting that you seek proof from me concerning an issue that isn't based in science, but mired in subjective moral muck. Now show me the well established, peer reviewed, scientific position, that a mass of blood and cellular material is human, homo sapien, or any other term that you choose to call it.

 

[Stymietee]

Most of the 40% are right here

I honestly can't wait for this to be presented by Lou Dobbs! Here's a preview: AG Barr finds that investigations into Trump started because the president is a shady MF'er! This is Lou Dobbs, goodnight!

 

[Sharkinva]

QUOTE="gkekoa, post: 13284453, member: 5837"]I did put that but you have to read more than a mere blurb. When I am speaking of humans, I figured you would know, and I wouldn’t have to spell out, the context in which I am n again, you don’t believe in context.

This isn’t what you said. You said developing. A 17 year old is still developing...there is no context there. You are either a developing, developed, or dying human.

You can claim definitions to be whatever you want. You can also be wrong as much as you want. All living organisms on the face of the planet fall into specific categories in science. A fetus is a Homo Sapien...unless you can show me it isn’t scientifically.

In context or not in context "taking of a life" even in the manner in which you intended it to be doesn't cover the subject at hand, since it isn't a 'life." by definition scientifically. (beginning of, or first stage of, is not the same thing as an actual life)

News flash, there is no such thing as a fully developed person, we continuously grow up until the moment of death no matter how that death occurs.

I get it, you want to turn this into an ethical/ moral argument and I'm not going to play that nonsensical game. You can have your moral opinion and I'll support and defend your right to the same. Ethically, there's no objectivity or rationale that supports this group think position beyond belief. It is interesting that you seek proof from me concerning an issue that isn't based in science, but mired in subjective moral muck. Now show me the well established, peer reviewed, scientific position, that a mass of blood and cellular material is human, homo sapien, or any other term that you choose to call it.

Give it time Sty.. at some point in their quest to control and punish women, they will pass a law that says life begins the moment a woman has nut inside her and want to execute women for showering after sex because it might prevent a potential life if they wash too soon. But only women will be subject to this punishment.

 

[Stymietee]

Give it time Sty.. at some point in their quest to control and punish women, they will pass a law that says life begins the moment a woman has nut inside her and want to execute women for showering after sex because it might prevent a potential life if they wash too soon. But only women will be subject to this punishment.

Yeah, and worse maybe they will get around to men who masturbate and throw away the seed of life, but that won't happen because it's a do as I say kind of thing!

 

[reptec101]

Neither! So let me ask you a question, what's the difference between these two on the same subject... hypocrite (right) vs hypocrite (left). YOU make the call!

The only hypocrite is the soul who feels innocent babies should be aborted (killed) without a second thought just because said person aint ready for no damn kid... while in the same breath against the death penalty for vicious killers or other incarcerated extreme violent people. The soul who feels that the innocent baby should be allowed to live and grow as you and I have had the distinct pleasure of doing but would like to see the guy who killed 30 people as they attended church (or just any member of your family) fry in the electric chair (yes, bring it back) is probably a soul who understands common logic and sense of decency.


Who should die? This baby at 5 months inside a womb... or this serial killer? If you pick Dahmer then you are pro life in regards to abortion,,, if you pick the baby not sure I can associate with you anymore. Please answer... this game is for all.

 

[Sharkinva]

Yeah, and worse maybe they will get around to men who masturbate and throw away the seed of life, but that won't happen because it's a do as I say kind of thing!

More like a do WHAT I say thing.. but totally agree.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm going to ask this question but I really don't expect anything more than an ad-hominem response.

How is it possible to create a law that forbids women from having an abortion, yet ONLY punishes the medical professional for something that she decided to do?

"