This. It is high time we called this what it is, a religion that teaches hate, violence and bigotry.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
This. It is high time we called this what it is, a religion that teaches hate, violence and bigotry.
Serious question if Russia took out Obama would America care? I mean we have taken out our fair share of people in our time, but at this point the military doesn't like or believe in our leader and the people in control would prefer a non-violent way to resolve things.
So I'm serious would we care?
So I'm serious would we care?
The question is: What good would that do? We can say "religion of peace" in public all we want (we lie about everything else, anyways) but we can and should continue to profile at airports and spy in mosques.
The western Islamic community is already feeling threatened and self-conscious because of all of this stuff; what good would it do to *say* their religion is the enemy, as opposed to treating it like the enemy from a practical standpoint? The last thing we want to do is drive them into the arms of the more radical wings of their religious community; we've seen that play out in both Iraq and Syria.
Blood might have been dried. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22752750. On a serious note, how long should she (or anyone) wait? Does this mandatory waiting period only apply to statements about gun laws? If so, isn't that ironic?
I'm not advocating for more gun laws (because this is the Paddock I'll repeat twice more later) because they just won't stop terrorists from getting guns. But among people that study terrorism, there is a concern that terrorists would eventually turn to gun violence and attack a series of soft targets. It's just harder to stop. Yeah, you're not going to kill 3000 people at once. But what if there were 20 attacks like this throughout the US over the course of, say, 6 months? Terrorism is about impact, not just death totals.
100% agree.
"I cant believe any civilized person would want to own a gun. All theyre good for is killing" - Liberals, while writing a check to planned parenthood....
Truth. They are despicable, right?
They'd balk at killing little Mary Sue, but nothing can stop their lust for fetal blood. Insidious and hypocritical creatures, they are.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Depends on the size of the gun. It would be more humane since you would probably suffer less.
A
anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6
Guest
To guard against the lone or small group of psycho gunmen, either the police need insanely intrusive power of surveillance or everyone need to be armed. I don't understand how the former can be seriously considered by anyone, especially after the recent tension between police and citizens.
I imagine this is what Michael Scott's campaign footage would look like.
IIRC, the last Rambo movie showed him decapitating people (and sawing them in half) with a .50 cal mounted gun.
Gold. I hope all the candidates have this stuff released. And is there a Herman Cain reel? I WOULD PAY CASH!
I almost want Cruz to win just for the comedy. He's a perfect sketch comedy parody.
That video was painful.
What is it about politicians? It's like they just become some stepford robot like they were made out of a machine or something. Them and news anchors always seem like the fakest human beings on the planet.
Would it be too much to ask to just speak normal and act like a normal person? The rest of us don't speak like we're getting ready to do monologues.
What is it about politicians? It's like they just become some stepford robot like they were made out of a machine or something. Them and news anchors always seem like the fakest human beings on the planet.
Would it be too much to ask to just speak normal and act like a normal person? The rest of us don't speak like we're getting ready to do monologues.
My favorite part is when he talks about his mom lifting him up in prayer haha "For Hours." Your mom prays for you for hours? Well damn. You got my vote.
‘‘Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015’’
They bought into Freedom Fries, why wouldn't they approve of this?
You're not going to believe what Loretta Lynch said. This witch and the entire Obama administration are total pieces of garbage. January 2017 can't come quick enough.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton...-toward-musl?utm_term=.wuO99kXo7G#.aeeYYPLy31
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton...-toward-musl?utm_term=.wuO99kXo7G#.aeeYYPLy31
It's stupid. Waste of time and money. Abortion won't stop. I support it 100%. We don't have the money to support a new generation of abortion babies in welfare..
Just ridiculous. My question is. Why are christians trying to stop the Rapture? They know the end game. Why stop it? Let us godless heathen make our own INDIVIDUAL choices. I'm sure god will send back his son in a Delorian to save the "good ones". Until then, let us godless heathens proceed with causing the Rapture.
Last edited:
WOW, some woman had the ovaries to challenge Hillary's "every sexual assault victim deserves to be believed" garbage by bringing up all the women who have accused her husband of rape. And Hillary's response is drop jawed amazing, she admits to believing her husband was a rapist until evidence was presented that it was not true?
Nothing like stockpiling an armory and making IED's just in case someone makes you mad at a christmas party.
It should make americans furious their leader continues to pretend this was anything other than a premeditated attack. Theyd been planning this for months.
They already have the power to listen and watch everything. Snowden blew the lid on that. Problem is - theyre apparently terrible at preventing this stuff from happening. Even though they hear/see everything, terrorists have executed successful attacks in Boston, Chattanooga, and now San Bernadino. And thats if you believe the attacks on the military bases werent terrorist related.
They dont need more power. They need to use the power they have, better.
I agree with these parts of your post. Abortion is tough for me. Because I feel like its an incredible injustice on the individual level, but a necessary method of population/social control on the social level.
That said, I still dont think they should be federally funded. Theyve been selling baby parts and making 100's of millions of dollars. Even if you dont consider the goods they sell, I think its a reasonable position that our government should end financial support of companies making 100s of millions of dollars.
Here's where I agree, but for non religious reasons. If this non-profit is raking in the money without federal dollars, then why in the hell is PP getting federal tax dollars?
That's my beef with PP.
As a few of us predicted, the Terrorist attack in San Bernardino has had a dynamic effect on the GOP nominating race
New CNN Poll has Trump surging to a 20 point lead in primary race.
Trailing far behind are Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.
I still see Cruz as the candidate most likely to get on top if Trump should falter, though that is becoming increasingly unlikely.
New CNN Poll has Trump surging to a 20 point lead in primary race.
Trailing far behind are Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%.
I still see Cruz as the candidate most likely to get on top if Trump should falter, though that is becoming increasingly unlikely.
If people like BBI, who's more reasonable and well-informed than most voters in this country, think ^^^^ is what congress is doing.....they're we're totally touched.
With terrorist attacks in Paris and a shooting spree in California prompting alarm on the part of many Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday that her "greatest fear" is that expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment will lead to attacks on Muslims in the U.S.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...nst-anti-muslim-backlash-216421#ixzz3tMk5Hq9I
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...nst-anti-muslim-backlash-216421#ixzz3tMk5Hq9I
They're just billing Medicaid. These aren't grants. Congress is trying to say that PP and *only PP* can't bill Medicaid for ANYTHING. The bill also doesn't affect any abortion providers besides PP.
This is pure political bullshit. It has nothing to do with abortion, health care, or anything else besides pandering for votes.
Like I posted, its a tough issue because I see the social value in it. But I don't understand why federal funds of any sort are going towards it. Maybe I don't understand the medicine behind it, but I don't understand why this is anything other than an elective procedure; which shouldn't be covered.
Now, if PP actually doesn't get federal funding; I stand corrected. Its tough to believe anything they say, considering their leader said several times they provide mammograms, until she testified under oath they don't.
Planned Parenthood can't even bill for abortion under Medicaid. This bill *only* withdraws reimbursement for other forms of care (pelvic exams, STD testing, etc) that Medicaid otherwise pays providers to perform and only affects Planned Parenthood clinics in particular.
If this had anything to do with preventing abortions, why would they put all of those qualifiers in the bill so that *only* PP is affected and not any other provider who's performed elective terminations? There are more than a dozen non-PP clinics in Seattle that advertise abortion services and they won't be affected. There are untold numbers of gynecologists in this city who provide elective terminations (but don't openly talk about it) and they won't be affected either.
EDIT regarding mammograms: She wasn't lying at all. A woman can't just walk into a radiologist's office and say "hey, can I get a mammogram?" They have to be referred to a radiologist by a primary care provider. The PCP bills for the referral (typically under E&M 99214 using ICD 200.0) for a couple dozen dollars, then the radiologist bills Medicaid for a much larger amount for the mammogram/interpretation.
Now, even if a radiologist *did* perform a mammogram for a woman presenting without a referral, Medicaid (and any other insurer) either wouldn't pay for the mammogram or would pay at a much much reduced rate (read: the patient pays way more).
Last edited:
Ill definitely need to look into it. If Im wrong, Im wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Also, while not a lawyer, I'm reading that bill to mean that many large university hospital systems could potentionally lose >$350,000,000 in Medicaid reimbursement if ANY of their ObGyns have performed elective terminations (which is very very likely)
Similar threads
