Conservatives = Don't kill babies, kill criminals.
Liberals = Don't kill criminals, kill babies.
Questions?
Megablue05 =
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conservatives = Don't kill babies, kill criminals.
Liberals = Don't kill criminals, kill babies.
Questions?
Sure it isn't, outside politics plays no role in how the SCOTUS rules, whatever.
Idealistically you're right, and that's the way it's supposed to work, realistically you're wrong.
falseI'll be brief
Not all of us. That tree can come down for all I care. Same with stuffing someone's dog into a gas oven. Death row? Kill'em all.
Bb79, I'm not going down any rabbit hole, nor did I say the case just got thrown together over the weekend.
However, I do think election year politics play a huge role in the timing of these decisions.
More to what I was speaking of was how the media portrays it. Like it is some huge groundbreaking decision. It's not, as far as the grand scheme of things, and they know it.
It's simply something to draw the attention of possible voters away from actual issues.
While I doubt any person said that, no way it was an entire group of leaders. Please link to make that claim. No reasonable person believes that.No different than the dem leaders saying that Vets are potential terrorist.
Literally none of this is true. None.I'll never understand how any monster could justify abortion outside of rape. I think a lot of its supporters don't even know what the process is like. Look at the pro choice crowd actually watching an abortion being done and then changing their mind.
Here's what simply amazes me about the left and how they can stockpile all of these voting blocks despite total conflicting ideologies and interests.
Dems get the black vote despite their history of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow laws, destroying the black community in every city they control and despite being pro abortion, which was designed to exterminate blacks and other minorities and aborts more blacks than any other race.
They also get the black vote despite wanting open borders and illegal immigration, which takes away even more jobs from the black community in a time where black youth unemployment is through the roof.
But all Dems have to do is pander and it gets ignored.
Then take a look at their desire to bring in millions of Muslims all while claiming to be for feminists, women's rights and the LGBT communities. That's right. Somehow in the Dem universe you can be for civil rights of gays and women all while you bring in a group who oppresses them and even kills them and then wants to make sure you don't have any way to protect yourself from this group.
We also have the college kids idiots who think Dems care about the youth while wanting to bring in people who will make sure they don't have a job when they get out of college.
false
However, I do think election year politics play a huge role in the timing of these decisions.
This SCOTUS is by far the most public opinion sensitive that I can recall.
Yes, not all; which is why I made sure to use the word generally. Your position on favoring abortion is in line with the rest of your views. Plus, the macro social impact of abortion is a valid argument; and is one I agree with. Me personally, I just cant ignore the fact an unborn child is being killed..
I didn't make it through the first paragraph and I was going to post the same thing.false
I linked it a couple of weeks ago. Can't right now on my pad but will later when on my desk top.While I doubt any person said that, no way it was an entire group of leaders. Please link to make that claim. No reasonable person believes that.
Saying that would be political suicide.
So apparently it was leaked to Poland that Germany wants the EU member states to dissolve/submit their armies and borders to create a "superstate"..........yeah, that will work out well.
It sucks that we have to deal with it. That's why i say I don't like it.
But abortion solves a lot of economic problems for tax payers and the medical health of women.
There is no evidence. Absolutely zilch that any abstinence-only or purity ring bullshit stops pregnancies. Nor does any religious program that guilt shames the woman. Absolutely horrendous situation. What has shown to work is free condoms. It's the only research that has been proven to cut unwanted pregnancies. Colorado just had a $5 million dollar grant that paid for preventives and saved the state $42 million dollars. That program was not renewed. That's f***** insane. Good thing they got weed money to help with that. I hate for the gov't to sponsor that, but shit, if it meant saving money on a grand scale, it would be a better savings to tax payers paying welfare, than the U.S has ever seen.
As a tax payer, I refuse to let my dollars go to child welfare that could have prevented.
let these unwanted babies out of the womb, and we'd be broke as a country. Don't want to abort, but don't want the gov't to pay for them. That's a true dilemma. Pro-lifers have no plan, no anything. Just lett'em out of the womb and we'll worry about it later. That's stupid.
Uh....I guarantee abstinence would stop pregnancies. I agree that "guilting" people is not an effective way to change behavior. Unfortunately, that's the approach many Christian people take. Where I have a problem with the whole thing is that unwanted pregnancy can be avoided and generally the only reason it's not is simple irresponsibility. Yet it's not big deal to just kill the baby since we chose to go ahead and have sex in stead of waiting fifteen minutes to run to Walmart and pick up a box of rubbers. As for people having babies and not being able to take care of them....When welfare mom has #2 child she can't afford, give her a choice: continue welfare benefits IF you agree to have your tubes tied. If not, no more Uncle Sam $ for you.
I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.But it hasn't. That's the problem. No one is is abstaining. Those programs are complete failures.
I think putting a governor on a woman's vagina is the solution. That way, when she can afford them, they release the governor off of it and wah lah.
Colorado just had a $5 million dollar grant that paid for preventives and saved the state $42 million dollars. That program was not renewed. That's f***** insane. Good thing they got weed money to help with that. I hate for the gov't to sponsor that, but shit, if it meant saving money on a grand scale, it would be a better savings to tax payers paying welfare, than the U.S has ever seen.
Big blue, so you don't think politics plays any part of these decisions? I wish you were right.
My point is Anyone who would say vets are potential terrorists is a moron and not indicative of any political party.
I do believe that some is stupid enough to say that though. Sad.
But it hasn't. That's the problem. No one is is abstaining. Those programs are complete failures.
I think putting a governor on a woman's vagina is the solution. That way, when she can afford them, they release the governor off of it and wah lah.
I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.
How could you possibly know or measure this? Consider a famous SCOTUS case from 62 years ago - Brown v. Board. The decision came down in 1954, but the case was originally argued in spring 1953 (SCOTUS terms are roughly October to June/July, which is why a case argued in April can, and does, come down in late June, btw). Why? The 1953 majority (which had enough votes to win) thought that having a unanimous ruling was crucial to the public response to the decision. In essence, a dissent would provide fodder for pro-segregationists. So the case was reargued in fall 1953 and issued in May 1954, all due to concern over public opinion. In 1954.
Big blue, so you don't think politics plays any part of these decisions? I wish you were right.
Operation Vigilant Eagle is an American law-enforcement effort headed by the FBI aimed at identifying and preventing violence from white supremacists and "militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups".[1] The operation was first mentioned in the Wall Street Journal in April 2009.[2]
Operation Vigilant Eagle exists as part of a larger national security effort to target individuals associated with "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" extremist groups. Example include members of (Tea Party movements), citizen militia (Occupy movements),[1] and other anti-government groups. In certain cases targets have been labeled as mentally ill with "oppositional-defiance disorder", and more cases show that veterans are being targeted since the beginning of Operation Vigilant Eagle[3] and the cause could be as simple as posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook.[3]
My disagreement with this statement is your insertion of "sex outside of marriage". Doesn't matter to me if two people are married or not, if they cannot afford to have a child and bear the burden of the expense that entails, they should not have a child.I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.
You are dead wrong. Abstinence programs absolutely stop pregnancies. Getting humans to abstain is the problem.I agree: Abstinence programs do not stop pregnancies. If a parent is counting on their kids abstaining, they'd better start teaching them the ramifications and implications of sex outside of marriage at a very early age....and not in a guilt producing but a factual manner.
Jocks get more abortions than nerds, hope that helps you on your quest.Who gets more abortions - College grads or nah?
Is Bill eligible for another term in Little Rock?Agreed. And I pictured Jessie "The Body" Ventura on a woman's vagina. You know Arnold would be up for it, too.
FBI bearing down on HRC:
---based “on all the available evidence, including what is publicly known and what is known in the law enforcement community, there is sufficient, credible evidence needed to meet the predicate to begin a grand jury – sufficient evidence for probable cause to believe various crimes have been committed.”
http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/fbi-revolt-of-watergate-proportions-if-hillary-skates/
Is Bill eligible for another term in Little Rock?
Bb79, I'm not twisting anything, I do think decisions are made to misdirect public opinion during election years.
I do think the Brexit decision may have played a role in this decision by the court.
In order for Trump to win he needs a mixture of Dems and Reps, Brexit plays right into that. In order for Hillary to win she just needs things to stay as they are, and that's off truly important topics. Abortion, guns, transgender plays into that.
So essentially she needs left vs right with social issues at the forefront.
i probably should've worded my initial post differently, I understand this was scheduled for months, but I do have doubts the ruling would've been the same before Thursday, but I don't trust those in power any longer.