Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

We are headed back to the Stone Age

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by daCat View Post

    You're like a left hand centrifuge. Do you put on your pussy hat when you post this shit?
    No, I read the bill. What did you read? Prager U?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DPR View Post

      No, I read the bill. What did you read? Prager U?
      The bill is vague on a few key points. To the point it could be used to Kevorkian new born babies. "Nobody would actually do this" is not a guarantee regardless of what the authors think.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by daCat View Post

        It wouldn't be an issue if not for the new wave of longer terms and wide open abortion. Men have no rights, etc. This is the result of pushing it too far. Now the push back is going too far.
        Disingenuous. No, they were always going to try and have Roe v. Wade overturned. This isn’t a straw breaking the camel’s back scenario. They’ve been waiting, somewhat patiently, until such a time as they feel the tenor of the court favors them.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by daCat View Post

          The bill is vague on a few key points. To the point it could be used to Kevorkian new born babies. "Nobody would actually do this" is not a guarantee regardless of what the authors think.
          Good grief. It does not do that. And the bill hasn't been passed or signed anyway, it was just introduced. The sponsor of the bill clarified that it does not allow for killing a baby after it is born. Worst case scenario the woman goes into labor during a late-term abortion of a fetus that is suffering medical complications that deem it nonviable and the physician and woman decide to not resuscitate. We "pull the plug" on dying people all of the time.

          Comment


          • #35
            I'm not going to argue this shit. Some people on both sides come from extremist positions that I don't prescribe to. And everybody down the line has an ideological view that generally sways from one side to the other, rendering any action of the other side the most egregious. I think a baby is a human being at conception. It becomes a unique cluster of cells, somewhat different from my own, at that point. I think instances of rape and incest should be exceptions, along with mother's health risk and extreme cases of deformity. I think the male side of the dna equation also has rights.

            That's my simplified view of the abortion issue. Nobody is going to change my mind and I am not arrogant enough to think I will change yours.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by daCat View Post
              I'm not going to argue this shit. Some people on both sides come from extremist positions that I don't prescribe to. And everybody down the line has an ideological view that generally sways from one side to the other, rendering any action of the other side the most egregious. I think a baby is a human being at conception. It becomes a unique cluster of cells, somewhat different from my own, at that point. I think instances of rape and incest should be exceptions, along with mother's health risk and extreme cases of deformity. I think the male side of the dna equation also has rights.

              That's my simplified view of the abortion issue. Nobody is going to change my mind and I am not arrogant enough to think I will change yours.
              If someone is born from a rape, should it be legal for the mother to change her mind and have them killed? If not, then explain the difference between post-birth and pre-birth since you say a cluster of cells is a human but can be killed if the product of a rape.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by daCat View Post

                I think I've made it very clear I don't prescribe to any parties complete platform. How is this the least bit confusing?
                Does that mean that you'll stop referring to yourself as a libertarian while calling for more policing powers to be used only on people you don't like?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                  Does that mean that you'll stop referring to yourself as a libertarian while calling for more policing powers to be used only on people you don't like?
                  Why do you insist on being a disingenuous douche?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by daCat View Post

                    Why do you insist on being a disingenuous douche?
                    If you call everyone a disingenuous douche, perhaps its because you're the disingenuous douche.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by DPR View Post

                      If you call everyone a disingenuous douche, perhaps its because you're the disingenuous douche.
                      Don't worry . Nobody will ever replace your picture displayed by the definition in the dictionary.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by daCat View Post

                        Why do you insist on being a disingenuous douche?
                        If everyone who gives you a hard time is a douche, does that make you a pussy? No wonder Trump grabs you.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                          If everyone who gives you a hard time is a douche, does that make you a pussy? No wonder Trump grabs you.
                          Trump has no hold on me. But you should realize I'm not going along with your attempt at labelling me. I have been clear about not having a political party and have said why. I see myself as a mix of libertarian and conservative and in some ways, liberal. I gave reasons. Not sure what else I can say about it that would help you understand. I like the isolationist view of libertarians. I like the hands off-liberty first attitude of libertarians. But that doesn't mean I want to give criminals the upper hand. In this case, facial recognition technology could assist in solving cases. Please explain how that interferes with freedom in any way?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by daCat View Post

                            Trump has no hold on me. But you should realize I'm not going along with your attempt at labelling me. I have been clear about not having a political party and have said why. I see myself as a mix of libertarian and conservative and in some ways, liberal. I gave reasons. Not sure what else I can say about it that would help you understand. I like the isolationist view of libertarians. I like the hands off-liberty first attitude of libertarians. But that doesn't mean I want to give criminals the upper hand. In this case, facial recognition technology could assist in solving cases. Please explain how that interferes with freedom in any way?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by daCat View Post

                              Trump has no hold on me. But you should realize I'm not going along with your attempt at labelling me. I have been clear about not having a political party and have said why. I see myself as a mix of libertarian and conservative and in some ways, liberal. I gave reasons. Not sure what else I can say about it that would help you understand. I like the isolationist view of libertarians. I like the hands off-liberty first attitude of libertarians. But that doesn't mean I want to give criminals the upper hand. In this case, facial recognition technology could assist in solving cases. Please explain how that interferes with freedom in any way?
                              Faces aren't as unique as DNA. And the technology isn't accurate enough yet. My daughter's face can unlock my mom's iPhone. So how many innocent people will be harassed by the police before technology gets to a place where it is perfected and the government agencies pay for it?

                              That's leaving aside the fact that it can, and likely will, be used to identify and silence protesting dissidents.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                800,000 people in Alabama live below the poverty line. Alabama ranks 45 or lower in education, health care, economy, opportunity and crime but claim life is important no matter what.

                                I'm not even sure why they put in some exception for the mother might die abortion. If it's God's plan....let's just go with it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X