Topic: Its ON now motherfuckers..
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #91,873
'Nancy Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry of Trump'
You just stepped into the fire!
You just stepped into the fire!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #1,044,247
He's gonna whine on Twitter and Republicans in Congress will yell and he'll be impeached with a majority of the house and ~50 Senate votes but won't be removed from office.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,248
Will the evidence of Russian collusion finally come to light? ?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,249
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,250
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Slavic countries are like Oriental countries: they're all pretty much the same and interchangeable for all intents and purposes.
Slavic countries are like Oriental countries: they're all pretty much the same and interchangeable for all intents and purposes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,251
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,254
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well I know, like, Poland and Ukraine are our Slavic countries so they're the good guys and Russia is the bad guy but I challenge anyone to point out a meaningful actual difference between Ukraine and Russia. Russia is just a really big Ukraine. Ukraine is just a much smaller Russia.
Well I know, like, Poland and Ukraine are our Slavic countries so they're the good guys and Russia is the bad guy but I challenge anyone to point out a meaningful actual difference between Ukraine and Russia. Russia is just a really big Ukraine. Ukraine is just a much smaller Russia.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,255
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,256
@1,044,254 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I'm gonna need kook to explain the difference between street slavs and forest Slavs before I fully understand this distinction.
I'm gonna need kook to explain the difference between street slavs and forest Slavs before I fully understand this distinction.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 39 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,257
I hope the Liberalcrats hype this to the heavens and give us a reason to stomp them into mud holes. This could be what we've been waiting for.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,260
@previous (A)
Who is this "us"
Your Ku Klux Klan, Southern rebels or the incest driven Southern Gentlemen, who protect statues of Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee, who turned traitor to USA and tried and failed to stomp the northerners.
Who is this "us"
Your Ku Klux Klan, Southern rebels or the incest driven Southern Gentlemen, who protect statues of Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee, who turned traitor to USA and tried and failed to stomp the northerners.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,263
@previous (D)
> Who is this "us"
> Your Ku Klux Klan, Southern rebels or the incest driven Southern Gentlemen, who protect statues of Robert E Lee.
>
> Robert E Lee, who turned traitor to USA and tried and failed to stomp the northerners.
It's funny you wanna claim Republicans are racists... Tell me something, if Republicans are so racist, why did a Republican free the slaves?
Checkmate dumbocrats!
> Who is this "us"
> Your Ku Klux Klan, Southern rebels or the incest driven Southern Gentlemen, who protect statues of Robert E Lee.
>
> Robert E Lee, who turned traitor to USA and tried and failed to stomp the northerners.
It's funny you wanna claim Republicans are racists... Tell me something, if Republicans are so racist, why did a Republican free the slaves?
Checkmate dumbocrats!
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,264
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,265
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,266
@1,044,264 (F)
> It's funny you wanna claim Republicans are racists... Tell me something, if Republicans are so racist, why did a Republican free the slaves?
> It's funny you wanna claim Republicans are racists... Tell me something, if Republicans are so racist, why did a Republican free the slaves?
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,268
@1,044,265 (A)
> You take the abortion activists.
The weird religious terrorists who plant pipebombs and murder doctors? I don't want them. You take them.
> You take the abortion activists.
The weird religious terrorists who plant pipebombs and murder doctors? I don't want them. You take them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,269
@previous (F)
You don't think a Doctor who murders babies should judged via the Eye for an eye doctrine?
You don't think a Doctor who murders babies should judged via the Eye for an eye doctrine?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,274
@previous (A)
I don't think we have the same standards for murder. I certainly wouldn't cheer on an animal rights activist assassinating ranchers, no matter how sincerely they might believe that meat is murder. There really isn't an eye for an eye "doctrine" outside of the laws of Moses, and even Jesus balked at that shit. I don't think bombing clinics is exactly what either Moses or Jesus was talking about anyway.
I don't think we have the same standards for murder. I certainly wouldn't cheer on an animal rights activist assassinating ranchers, no matter how sincerely they might believe that meat is murder. There really isn't an eye for an eye "doctrine" outside of the laws of Moses, and even Jesus balked at that shit. I don't think bombing clinics is exactly what either Moses or Jesus was talking about anyway.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,281
Cool he won’t get impeached by the senate and this will somehow help him like it did with Bill and we have another four years of Trump or he gets canned and we are stuck with a corporate pro business main street repub prez who will be like a more lethal and competent version of trump who has a hate boner for gays and minorities
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,282
@previous (G)
> who will be like a more lethal and competent version of trump who has a hate boner for gays and minorities
This is why we can't let a Democrat become president.
> who will be like a more lethal and competent version of trump who has a hate boner for gays and minorities
This is why we can't let a Democrat become president.
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,284
@1,044,281 (G)
> and this will somehow help him like it did with Bill
Democrats lost the next presidential election follow Clinton's impeachment, if you recall.
@previous (E)
LOL In hindsight, electing Trump to office probably wasn't the best way to accomplish that plan.
> and this will somehow help him like it did with Bill
Democrats lost the next presidential election follow Clinton's impeachment, if you recall.
@previous (E)
LOL In hindsight, electing Trump to office probably wasn't the best way to accomplish that plan.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,285
@1,044,281 (G)
> a more lethal and competent version of trump who has a hate boner for gays and minorities
I remember people used to joke that nobody would assassinate Dubya because then Cheney would be president, with the same logic. President Pence is pretty good insurance against the LGBTQ+ trying to assassinate Trump. Not that they would because he's the most pro-gay Republican in living memory (Abraham Lincoln, being a closeted gay, was probably more pro-gay)
I can't remember if there was a similar thing with Obama/Biden. I don't think anyone really thought about Biden much back then.
> a more lethal and competent version of trump who has a hate boner for gays and minorities
I remember people used to joke that nobody would assassinate Dubya because then Cheney would be president, with the same logic. President Pence is pretty good insurance against the LGBTQ+ trying to assassinate Trump. Not that they would because he's the most pro-gay Republican in living memory (Abraham Lincoln, being a closeted gay, was probably more pro-gay)
I can't remember if there was a similar thing with Obama/Biden. I don't think anyone really thought about Biden much back then.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,287
@1,044,274 (F)
You know damn well a pregnant woman doesnt waddle around town wondering wtf that huge bump is on the front of her is.
Couples who planned a pregnancy will sit around and make comments between themselves and friends about the babies name and will even prepare the barbie's nursery or room months in advance of the due date.
The ONLY reason you sick fuckheaded nogood disgusting liberals prance about and say-
"it's not a person inside the womb"
is it somehow (why makes no logical sense) let's you not be held unaccountable in court for murdering that human being.
It's as if billions have people have been born but until the moment they slide out of the vaginal canal it's some mystery that there is an actual new human involved.
Oh shit, Martha a baby was inside you!!
That wasnt some kind of soccer ball sized tumor after all.
Sperm from a man. + an egg inside the uterous of a woman= another human.
How abortion went through the Courts is the Ultimate proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Abortion is murdering a baby.
You know damn well a pregnant woman doesnt waddle around town wondering wtf that huge bump is on the front of her is.
Couples who planned a pregnancy will sit around and make comments between themselves and friends about the babies name and will even prepare the barbie's nursery or room months in advance of the due date.
The ONLY reason you sick fuckheaded nogood disgusting liberals prance about and say-
"it's not a person inside the womb"
is it somehow (why makes no logical sense) let's you not be held unaccountable in court for murdering that human being.
It's as if billions have people have been born but until the moment they slide out of the vaginal canal it's some mystery that there is an actual new human involved.
Oh shit, Martha a baby was inside you!!
That wasnt some kind of soccer ball sized tumor after all.
Sperm from a man. + an egg inside the uterous of a woman= another human.
How abortion went through the Courts is the Ultimate proof that Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Abortion is murdering a baby.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,290
@previous (A)
I guess the other interpretation is, a fetus is a person when the mother decides it is. The babies that get named, have nurseries made up, etc, while they're still in utero have been granted personhood. Those that get chopped up and sucked out have had theirs cancelled (or never had it to begin with). Women have a ~9 month window to veto people existing.
I guess the other interpretation is, a fetus is a person when the mother decides it is. The babies that get named, have nurseries made up, etc, while they're still in utero have been granted personhood. Those that get chopped up and sucked out have had theirs cancelled (or never had it to begin with). Women have a ~9 month window to veto people existing.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,297
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I think it's more you aren't a person until you exhibit characteristics consistent with personhood. Fetuses don't reason or do most things we think other people can do. Viewing fetuses as people from the moment of conception is quite a new development in theology.
I think it's more you aren't a person until you exhibit characteristics consistent with personhood. Fetuses don't reason or do most things we think other people can do. Viewing fetuses as people from the moment of conception is quite a new development in theology.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,302
@1,044,256 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Street slavs are European N words and forest Slavs are European rednecks
Street slavs are European N words and forest Slavs are European rednecks
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,308
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,309
Oh also I think the Republican talking points will be:
1. Biden is corrupt (whether true or not it's irrelevant)
2. The aid wasn't withheld
If that fails:
3. The aid was withheld but it wasn't related to the Hunter Biden thing. (I think this is where it will ultimately stop, with Dems finding the circumstances suspicious enough to warrant impeachment even if there isn't a smoking gun quid pro quo phone call/conversation/message/whatever while Repubs will just kinda shrug their shoulders.)
Romney, Gardner, Collins and maybe McSally could vote to impeach. Sasse and Paul in theory should but won't because they're extremely partisan despite pretending to have their own ideology. If someone like Tillis or (extremely implausibly Cornyn) vote to impeach that tells you R's think their states are in play for Dems in 2020 which would be huge.
If there somehow is a quid pro quo established AND the Dems don't fuck up the inquiry I could see Republicans moving to support removal, but even then I feel like they'd just circle the wagons and say the President has the ability to conduct foreign policy however he likes and while "extremely troubling" they won't vote to remove him from office.
1. Biden is corrupt (whether true or not it's irrelevant)
2. The aid wasn't withheld
If that fails:
3. The aid was withheld but it wasn't related to the Hunter Biden thing. (I think this is where it will ultimately stop, with Dems finding the circumstances suspicious enough to warrant impeachment even if there isn't a smoking gun quid pro quo phone call/conversation/message/whatever while Repubs will just kinda shrug their shoulders.)
Romney, Gardner, Collins and maybe McSally could vote to impeach. Sasse and Paul in theory should but won't because they're extremely partisan despite pretending to have their own ideology. If someone like Tillis or (extremely implausibly Cornyn) vote to impeach that tells you R's think their states are in play for Dems in 2020 which would be huge.
If there somehow is a quid pro quo established AND the Dems don't fuck up the inquiry I could see Republicans moving to support removal, but even then I feel like they'd just circle the wagons and say the President has the ability to conduct foreign policy however he likes and while "extremely troubling" they won't vote to remove him from office.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,310
@1,044,297 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Soooooo..
Infants can reason or do most things we think other people can do. Is that what you are saying?
Soooooo..
Infants can reason or do most things we think other people can do. Is that what you are saying?
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,311
@1,044,287 (A)
More like the wellness of the mother takes precedence over the fetus which cannot exist outside the mother
More like the wellness of the mother takes precedence over the fetus which cannot exist outside the mother
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,314
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
More like what?
More like more idiotic libsplaining to justify murdering a baby.
More like what?
More like more idiotic libsplaining to justify murdering a baby.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,316
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,324
@1,044,310 (A)
No, and neither do people who are asleep or unconscious or in a coma etc. It's tricky because I think most people don't want to charge women who have miscarriages with manslaughter, but also don't think that at 8 months and 29 days a woman can say "nah fuck it I don't want a kid" and yet there isn't like a clear solution to the moral dilemmas. You are balancing the rights of an actual living breathing independent person with the rights of what could eventually become an independent person. Ultimately I think forcing women to give birth is crueler to everyone involved than letting them terminate pregnancies in at least some circumstances.
No, and neither do people who are asleep or unconscious or in a coma etc. It's tricky because I think most people don't want to charge women who have miscarriages with manslaughter, but also don't think that at 8 months and 29 days a woman can say "nah fuck it I don't want a kid" and yet there isn't like a clear solution to the moral dilemmas. You are balancing the rights of an actual living breathing independent person with the rights of what could eventually become an independent person. Ultimately I think forcing women to give birth is crueler to everyone involved than letting them terminate pregnancies in at least some circumstances.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,325
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 25 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,328
jodi !ariasXXmaE replied with this 6 years ago, 56 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,330
@1,044,310 (A)
> Soooooo..
>
> Infants can reason or do most things we think other people can do. Is that what you are saying?
infants can't even see
> Soooooo..
>
> Infants can reason or do most things we think other people can do. Is that what you are saying?
infants can't even see
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 36 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,351
@1,044,297 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I've always seen it as like a Schrodingers Cat thing where the fetus is simultaneously a person and not a person until the mother makes a decision. Of course sometimes the fetus miscarries, or perhaps the mother wants to have the kid but learns that the pregnancy will be life threatening for her, or it's discovered the baby will be born with severe defects and then the mother might make a decision to abort an otherwise wanted child. But for the most part - beyond unforeseen circumstances - the fetus is both a human and not a human until the quantum uncertainty is resolved by the mother.
> Fetuses don't reason or do most things we think other people can do.
I don't think it can be said that immediate newborns do either. I guess they would do some things, like feeding, aversion to pain, perhaps be able to tell whether the person holding them is or is not their mother, have some level of awareness but I doubt a newborn human is much above, say, a newborn kitten in this regard. Probably actually even less than some animals. I saw a video of a newborn calf once and they stand up and start walking immediately after birth. Something that takes humans like a year or so.
Of course you have to have a line in the sand separating "human" from "not human" and you've got to draw it somewhere.
> Viewing fetuses as people from the moment of conception is quite a new development in theology.
It does seem quite arbitrary. I think I've posted this before but it's an interesting read: https://arcdigital.media/how-did-evangelicals-and-republicans-come-to-oppose-abortion-dcd4ac56c333
It was historically a Catholic thing (and they seem to be remarkably consistent about this over the centuries, gotta give them credit for that). It seems the turning point was this: "therapeutic" abortions (ostensibly for the well being of the mother) vs "elective" abortions (dont wanna have kids lol).
I did think for years before Obergefell v Hodges that gay marriage would be legalized with barely any resistance if it was called something - anything - other than "marriage". If it was called something tedious and boring like "civil partnership with survival benefits" or something and promoted as definitely not marriage (even though being exactly the same as marriage in all but name), there would have been no resistance. It was the "m-word", I think, that triggered Christians, not the actual idea of two same-sex people having legal recognition of their relationship.
What's interesting is the article posits something similar for abortion. Therapeutic abortion was pretty much okay with Protestant Evangelicals. Indeed in the late '60s, the Protestant deep South had more liberal abortion laws than the Catholic Northeast. But the idea of elective abortions set Christians off. Quote-unquote "therapeutic" abortions, where the mother had some nominal reason (even if everyone involved understood it was fictitious) why the pregnancy would be detrimental to her, would have made abortion much less controversial. Just create some euphemism for elective abortion instead. Some vaguely defined medical condition treatable by abortion that neither doctor nor patient spend much time diagnosing or looking for alternative treatments for.
It's kind of like Islamic banking. You would think Islamic banking would be radically different from Western banking because charging interest on loans is prohibited in Islam. But with a couple of creative legal fictions, the Muslims have created means of borrowing and lending money which are technically compliant with Islam but functionally identical to Western finance, violating the spirit but not the letter of the law. Or resigning from Parliament. It's illegal to resign from the House of Commons so instead MPs who wish to resign get appointed to a fictitious office of profit under the Crown which disqualifies them from Parliament. So just make abortion like that. A fake medical condition with incredibly vague and subjective diagnostic criteria, which just coincidentally happens to be treatable only by terminating the pregnancy.
Or at least that's the way I think they should have gone about it.
I've always seen it as like a Schrodingers Cat thing where the fetus is simultaneously a person and not a person until the mother makes a decision. Of course sometimes the fetus miscarries, or perhaps the mother wants to have the kid but learns that the pregnancy will be life threatening for her, or it's discovered the baby will be born with severe defects and then the mother might make a decision to abort an otherwise wanted child. But for the most part - beyond unforeseen circumstances - the fetus is both a human and not a human until the quantum uncertainty is resolved by the mother.
> Fetuses don't reason or do most things we think other people can do.
I don't think it can be said that immediate newborns do either. I guess they would do some things, like feeding, aversion to pain, perhaps be able to tell whether the person holding them is or is not their mother, have some level of awareness but I doubt a newborn human is much above, say, a newborn kitten in this regard. Probably actually even less than some animals. I saw a video of a newborn calf once and they stand up and start walking immediately after birth. Something that takes humans like a year or so.
Of course you have to have a line in the sand separating "human" from "not human" and you've got to draw it somewhere.
> Viewing fetuses as people from the moment of conception is quite a new development in theology.
It does seem quite arbitrary. I think I've posted this before but it's an interesting read: https://arcdigital.media/how-did-evangelicals-and-republicans-come-to-oppose-abortion-dcd4ac56c333
It was historically a Catholic thing (and they seem to be remarkably consistent about this over the centuries, gotta give them credit for that). It seems the turning point was this: "therapeutic" abortions (ostensibly for the well being of the mother) vs "elective" abortions (dont wanna have kids lol).
I did think for years before Obergefell v Hodges that gay marriage would be legalized with barely any resistance if it was called something - anything - other than "marriage". If it was called something tedious and boring like "civil partnership with survival benefits" or something and promoted as definitely not marriage (even though being exactly the same as marriage in all but name), there would have been no resistance. It was the "m-word", I think, that triggered Christians, not the actual idea of two same-sex people having legal recognition of their relationship.
What's interesting is the article posits something similar for abortion. Therapeutic abortion was pretty much okay with Protestant Evangelicals. Indeed in the late '60s, the Protestant deep South had more liberal abortion laws than the Catholic Northeast. But the idea of elective abortions set Christians off. Quote-unquote "therapeutic" abortions, where the mother had some nominal reason (even if everyone involved understood it was fictitious) why the pregnancy would be detrimental to her, would have made abortion much less controversial. Just create some euphemism for elective abortion instead. Some vaguely defined medical condition treatable by abortion that neither doctor nor patient spend much time diagnosing or looking for alternative treatments for.
It's kind of like Islamic banking. You would think Islamic banking would be radically different from Western banking because charging interest on loans is prohibited in Islam. But with a couple of creative legal fictions, the Muslims have created means of borrowing and lending money which are technically compliant with Islam but functionally identical to Western finance, violating the spirit but not the letter of the law. Or resigning from Parliament. It's illegal to resign from the House of Commons so instead MPs who wish to resign get appointed to a fictitious office of profit under the Crown which disqualifies them from Parliament. So just make abortion like that. A fake medical condition with incredibly vague and subjective diagnostic criteria, which just coincidentally happens to be treatable only by terminating the pregnancy.
Or at least that's the way I think they should have gone about it.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,452
@1,044,287 (A)
> You know damn well a pregnant woman doesnt waddle around town wondering wtf that huge bump is on the front of her is.
LOL No one is wondering why pregnancy happens, and pretending other people are that stupid doesn't make you look any smarter. Just stamping your foot and shouting murder over and over again doesn't really convince me that the government should have the right to force a woman to be pregnant. That's not how how I see a free society exercising state authority. To force a woman to do it against her will and against her best interests and even at the cost of putting her life in danger just because you want get teary-eyed and call it murder is a pretty fucking disgusting use of government power in my opinion.
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> It's kind of like Islamic banking.
Usually paragraphs that start this way don't end well, but you made it work. I think the comparison is apt. I think you have a point about the convenient fictions needing to be there to let people find some kind of ideological cover. That Joshua Tait piece certainly makes one thing clear: we're in a really odd spot right now regarding this issue and how it has been politicized. I'm still a little puzzled at the evangelical swing from harsh tut-tutting and reluctant accommodation to strident, no-exceptions Heartbeat Bill passing activists. (but then I rarely if ever understand evangelicals no matter how hard I try) It does bring up an interesting point about social programs and maternity care. One of the criticisms that has been lobbed at Republicans lately is that they only seem to care about children if they're in the womb. These criticisms usually grow stronger after some round of budget cuts whittling away the already slim amount of services available to mothers who don't have a small fortune to spend on medical care. Unless the whole point is pop out babies just so people like Bert can complain about welfare children, that dichotomy is going to need to find a balance somewhere.
Any criteria for "person" we come up with is ultimately going to be arbitrary, just like any other line we create for voting or driving or anything else. In that regard, I don't think arguing about the definitions really gets anyone too far before they just have to agree to disagree. I think the best we can do is find something somewhat consistent that everyone can at least work within.
> You know damn well a pregnant woman doesnt waddle around town wondering wtf that huge bump is on the front of her is.
LOL No one is wondering why pregnancy happens, and pretending other people are that stupid doesn't make you look any smarter. Just stamping your foot and shouting murder over and over again doesn't really convince me that the government should have the right to force a woman to be pregnant. That's not how how I see a free society exercising state authority. To force a woman to do it against her will and against her best interests and even at the cost of putting her life in danger just because you want get teary-eyed and call it murder is a pretty fucking disgusting use of government power in my opinion.
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> It's kind of like Islamic banking.
Usually paragraphs that start this way don't end well, but you made it work. I think the comparison is apt. I think you have a point about the convenient fictions needing to be there to let people find some kind of ideological cover. That Joshua Tait piece certainly makes one thing clear: we're in a really odd spot right now regarding this issue and how it has been politicized. I'm still a little puzzled at the evangelical swing from harsh tut-tutting and reluctant accommodation to strident, no-exceptions Heartbeat Bill passing activists. (but then I rarely if ever understand evangelicals no matter how hard I try) It does bring up an interesting point about social programs and maternity care. One of the criticisms that has been lobbed at Republicans lately is that they only seem to care about children if they're in the womb. These criticisms usually grow stronger after some round of budget cuts whittling away the already slim amount of services available to mothers who don't have a small fortune to spend on medical care. Unless the whole point is pop out babies just so people like Bert can complain about welfare children, that dichotomy is going to need to find a balance somewhere.
Any criteria for "person" we come up with is ultimately going to be arbitrary, just like any other line we create for voting or driving or anything else. In that regard, I don't think arguing about the definitions really gets anyone too far before they just have to agree to disagree. I think the best we can do is find something somewhat consistent that everyone can at least work within.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 27 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,456
> More like more idiotic libsplaining to justify murdering a baby.Bert so soon you forget. You contributed to the murder of babies, children and women and men for decades. You directly funded the Drug Cartels in Mexico and other countries, every time you bought Heroin to shoot into your veins. You never once gave a flying fuck who you hurt as you got yourself off.
Though not an exhaustive list, the following charges are frequently levied together against members of drug cartels and other organized crime:
Drug trafficking/distribution
Assault and battery
Murder
Money laundering
Fraud
Embezzlement
Theft
Pandering
Rape
Gambling
Bribery
Drug trafficking/distribution
Assault and battery
Murder
Money laundering
Fraud
Embezzlement
Theft
Pandering
Rape
Gambling
Bribery
Bert how many pregnant women were raped and murdered under your daily funding of the Cartels. How many men had their heads chopped off because of your selfish need to shoot up.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,481
@previous (D)
You dont have a daughter. You are not a father. The man who raised that girl from infancy is her father.
You dont have a daughter. You are not a father. The man who raised that girl from infancy is her father.
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,482
@1,044,456 (D)
You would have coerced the mother of that child into an abortion if the pregnancy hadn't become known in her relationship with that man first before you had a chance.
Yep.
You would have coerced the mother of that child into an abortion if the pregnancy hadn't become known in her relationship with that man first before you had a chance.
Yep.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,483
Your daughter (who really isnt your daughter) should have been aborted.
I dont condone abortions but there are exceptions to every rule. I bet she fornicates with colored boys every chance she gets.
I dont condone abortions but there are exceptions to every rule. I bet she fornicates with colored boys every chance she gets.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,485
@1,044,456 (D)
You know, usually people speak about the cartels directly aiding the addictions of people but you got it backwards for some reason, quite foolish if i do say so myself.
You know, usually people speak about the cartels directly aiding the addictions of people but you got it backwards for some reason, quite foolish if i do say so myself.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,486
How many times has that girl squirmed and moaned while a huge black dick pounded her asshole and then the black boy made her lick the feces off his dick?
Probably hundreds of times.
Probably hundreds of times.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,488
I bet she has had a half dozen abortions!
What kind of whore is that nasty girl?
What kind of whore is that nasty girl?
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,502
@1,044,287 (A)
Going off that logic it would be murder to disconnect a vegetable from life support or to put a terminally ill person on hospice when treatment could prolong their life
Going off that logic it would be murder to disconnect a vegetable from life support or to put a terminally ill person on hospice when treatment could prolong their life
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,504
@1,044,287 (A)
If the options are:
A) abortion, or
B) letting a child be born to parents who aren't capable or willing to properly raise a child in an already overcrowded world with a terribly overcrowded foster care system, dooming them to a life of misery...
I'm picking abortion. There are enough children already here, already born, who are suffering and need help. We don't need to add to the problem just so you can feel morally righteous about not "murdering babies."
If you actually cared about children, you'd be focused more on fixing the broken foster care system or social programs to help struggling parents than abortion. Anti-abortion stances are more often about controlling what women do with their bodies than it is about any legitimate care for the well-being of children.
If the options are:
A) abortion, or
B) letting a child be born to parents who aren't capable or willing to properly raise a child in an already overcrowded world with a terribly overcrowded foster care system, dooming them to a life of misery...
I'm picking abortion. There are enough children already here, already born, who are suffering and need help. We don't need to add to the problem just so you can feel morally righteous about not "murdering babies."
If you actually cared about children, you'd be focused more on fixing the broken foster care system or social programs to help struggling parents than abortion. Anti-abortion stances are more often about controlling what women do with their bodies than it is about any legitimate care for the well-being of children.
Green !StaYqkzUPc joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 34 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,507
@previous (Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6)
Or adoption. You know that's a thing and doesn't involve murdering an innocent child
Or adoption. You know that's a thing and doesn't involve murdering an innocent child
Dodongo !ZQvsveEcD6 replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,508
Green !StaYqkzUPc replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,509
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 32 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,512
This'll probably be the exchange that gets the most attention. The President, having withheld $400 million in foreign aid to a militarily occupied country, responds to interest in acquiring military equipment from the U.S. by asking for a favor.Again, no explicit quid pro quo, and it could all be totally unrelated/coincidental/innocent, but this doesn't look good.
god emperor obama replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,513
@1,044,488 (A)
> I bet she has had a half dozen abortions!
> What kind of whore is that nasty girl?
you tell me
> I bet she has had a half dozen abortions!
> What kind of whore is that nasty girl?
you tell me
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,518
Leaving aside the cruelty and criminality of this admin, the way it forces our allies to engage in these kinds of cheap appeals to Trump's vanity is so gross.You know every conversation with any leader or ambassador, envoy, etc. always contains the line somewhere "you know I just stayed at a trump hotel the other day and..."
Not the worst thing, but definitely among the tackiest and most shameless elements of this administration that none of his allies even try to defend with any sincerity.
(Edited 17 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 6 years ago, 22 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,522
The funniest outcome of all this would be if he gets impeached, the vote goes to the Senate, and R's who are sick of his shit dump him so that they can have a disciplined on-message Pence running shit rather than the current trainwreck.
I'd say that's incredibly unlikely (1-5% assuming it goes to the Senate) but that would be my favorite outcome just in terms of comedic value.
I'd say that's incredibly unlikely (1-5% assuming it goes to the Senate) but that would be my favorite outcome just in terms of comedic value.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 58 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,554
@1,044,481 (A)
@1,044,482 (A)
@1,044,483 (A)
Oh 4 Sure Later I will address your attack on my family and Dank You with invite 2 Rip Open the Guts of one's now rotting corpse 6Foot Under so called Southern Gentleman - Will do that later someTime
Anyway looks like YOU Failed to Address how for DECADES U Put Cold Hard Cash into Drug Cartel's hands to Rape Pregnant Women and then Murder them (Often putting bodies with the Unborn in Barrels of Acid
You paid for that Acid to burn the Unborn
Fyne Christian U turned out 2B Bert when U were shooting H In2 Veins did you say Praise Jesus.
BERT U End up 2Faced on the issue of Abortion.
@1,044,482 (A)
@1,044,483 (A)
Oh 4 Sure Later I will address your attack on my family and Dank You with invite 2 Rip Open the Guts of one's now rotting corpse 6Foot Under so called Southern Gentleman - Will do that later someTime
Anyway looks like YOU Failed to Address how for DECADES U Put Cold Hard Cash into Drug Cartel's hands to Rape Pregnant Women and then Murder them (Often putting bodies with the Unborn in Barrels of Acid
You paid for that Acid to burn the Unborn
Fyne Christian U turned out 2B Bert when U were shooting H In2 Veins did you say Praise Jesus.
BERT U End up 2Faced on the issue of Abortion.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,044,570
Your a nasty fuck.
I've sat and read you make these kinds of comments...and worse to me for quite some time and been very graceful about it..
I'm fucking tired of it. You constantly try to represent yourself as having so much class and constantly belittle others and go on and on an on about how you know better than anyone about any possible topic.
Anything anyone brings up you have some seven paragraph story about how you discussed the point with some well known celebrity. Nothing anyone related from personal experience gets posted with what you talk about you being in some foreign country and/or how you didnt exactly invent the lightbulb but it was going to be square and it was your brilliant suggestion they make it rounded...or you dodnt exactly invent
electricity but you supplied the idea of the way for to develop the power poles.
I'm very surprised you haven't said some tale about how when you donated sperm for the man and woman that were mother and father to that girl you 'say' you are paying tuition for...that you helped engineer a process to make condoms much stronger and less likely to break.
I've sat and read you make these kinds of comments...and worse to me for quite some time and been very graceful about it..
I'm fucking tired of it. You constantly try to represent yourself as having so much class and constantly belittle others and go on and on an on about how you know better than anyone about any possible topic.
Anything anyone brings up you have some seven paragraph story about how you discussed the point with some well known celebrity. Nothing anyone related from personal experience gets posted with what you talk about you being in some foreign country and/or how you didnt exactly invent the lightbulb but it was going to be square and it was your brilliant suggestion they make it rounded...or you dodnt exactly invent
electricity but you supplied the idea of the way for to develop the power poles.
I'm very surprised you haven't said some tale about how when you donated sperm for the man and woman that were mother and father to that girl you 'say' you are paying tuition for...that you helped engineer a process to make condoms much stronger and less likely to break.