US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[The Brandon Stark]

On 12/6/2016 at 10:47 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

You should probably try to explain why it's not true because simply saying the the Orange Shitstain said so it's any sort of evidence.

PEOTUS can say that he won't remove the ban on denying pre-existing conditions, he can say that kids can stay on their parent's plan until 26, he can say that costs won't go up.  But he's a pathological liar who doesn't understand the basics of just about anything beyond how to use Twitter.  Little of what he says is actually true.

You need to stop being so angry, "The Orange Shitstain" isn't very tolerant. And the Left is know for Tolerance...stay compassionate and tolerant tho

[TerraPrime]

12 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said:

My reading comprehension is amazing, The fucking over are the children that are aborted. Any child born is not fucked over, they get to live. The ones that are fetuses are the actual ones that get fucked over.

Fetuses are not children.

But do continue on with your deliberate obfuscation. It's most scintillating to read.

[The Brandon Stark]

5 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Fetuses are not children.

But do continue on with your deliberate obfuscation. It's most scintillating to read.

And again, I really don't have an opinion. So really not an obfuscation. So not scintillating. However, fetuses do become children and children become adults with opinions that then argue BS like this. Now the thing I wonder is if the Left would still argue Pro-Abortion if they truly knew it was to control the African-American Population in this country, not women's health.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

 

[all swedes are racist]

Lol. You really do have issues with reading comprehension 

[TerraPrime]

28 minutes ago, The Brandon Stark said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

 

You think the Sanger info is news to people? Do you read the internet?

 

And sure, you have no opinion on the issue. You're just a fair-minded non-partisan pointing out flaws on both sides, except you only comment on one side. I get it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 On a related note...

 

[mormont]

5 hours ago, The Brandon Stark said:

He is talking about the Union, not the workers.

He's talking about one specific union official, actually.

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's not necessarily a good thing, but it does frighten people like Soros and the Koch brothers.

And you know this because...? Where's the evidence that people like Soros and the Koch brothers aren't having a champagne party over Trump's victory?

3 hours ago, The Brandon Stark said:

My reading comprehension is amazing, The fucking over are the children that are aborted. Any child born is not fucked over, they get to live. The ones that are fetuses are the actual ones that get fucked over.

The issue is, is it better for a child to be born and suffer or not to be born at all?

Your presumption is that not being born = being 'fucked over', and that any life is better than no life. You need to recognise that this is a view many people don't hold.

[MerenthaClone]

2 hours ago, The Brandon Stark said:

And again, I really don't have an opinion. So really not an obfuscation. So not scintillating. However, fetuses do become children and children become adults with opinions that then argue BS like this. Now the thing I wonder is if the Left would still argue Pro-Abortion if they truly knew it was to control the African-American Population in this country, not women's health.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

 

Hey, did you know that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and were hypocritical assholes?  Guess all of their beliefs should be summarily ignored too.  Get fucked.  Its cute how you think Sanger's beliefs about eugenics are somehow new to anyone when Planned Parenthood is 100% open about the problematic and outdated views that Sanger held.  It was literally the first topic on the agenda at my volunteer orientation.  

[SerHaHa]

Quote

 

The issue is, is it better for a child to be born and suffer or not to be born at all?

Your presumption is that not being born = being 'fucked over', and that any life is better than no life. You need to recognise that this is a view many people don't hold.

 

 

Mormont, by that logic, many on the left declaring themselves the final arbiters of ...well, everything, what happens should one of them declare that your lot in life is nothing but suffering?  By your rationale for the unborn, do they not then have the same excuse to tear you apart with high pressure vacuums/suction and other pretty horrifying methods?  Better to be dead than suffering, right?  What's the difference, because you have an accumulated set of experiences over time, you have more of a right to NOT be torn apart and killed than someone - a someone with that same future potential - who doesn't have that?  This is essentially what is wrong with the entire "liberals gone wrong" movement IMO, the opinion that "x" is ok for "y", but not for me, as I'm better than "x", and "y" shouldn't apply to me.

Regarding past statements about protecting children, the previous poster to that specifically said I hated children, among many other crazed statements that have nothing to do with my position, past, or future actions.   

Quote

You hate children so much that you actively campaign to reduce their access to food, especially if they are poor.

I only responded as I have stood in the specific defense of children, children who weren't countrymen of mine, but still worthy of protection - I gladly paid, paid a lot for that, and continue to do so, meanwhile Lucy on the Left on her comfortable couch can say whatever the fuck she wants about me, as after all, if she says it, it must be true, right. 

 

OldGimletEye - Semper Fi, one of my best friends and co worker was a Marine, prior to being killed in 2006.  Sgt. Brent Clearman, he was a scout/sniper with the 1st Marine Div/5th Reg in Iraq, and worked for the same private military company as well as Sig Sauer while I was employed with both.  Great Marine and a good, fair man, he taught at the mountain warfare school in the USMC as well as the sniper school after the war before getting out, and taught me a lot about climbing, high angle descents/assaults, and other fun things involving mountains and high altitude locations.

 

I consider myself liberal as well, despite the beliefs and feelings of many of my peers.  True liberalism IMO is a consistent set of rights and freedoms, and fairness for everyone, however what we have now is the left making special rights, and social privileges, for certain groups it deems worthy.  How is that ANY different than an aristocracy, I have to ask?

To that effect: 

Quote

Fetuses are not children.

When does that fetus become a child, worthy of protection.  Surely you can't believe that a "fetus" a week from birth, when it could easily survive on its own even without incubation and other special care, isn't a legitimate target for the sharp instruments and high pressure suction equipment?  So when does it become "not okay", to perform such a procedure upon the unborn.  If you can't point to a specific time, how is alright at any time?  "Fetuses" at a pretty early age, have shown a defense mechanism, trying to escape being torn apart.  How anyone can claim that isn't a sign of intelligence, and stand by letting that happen - for any reason or excuse - is past my ability to understand.  

[mormont]

15 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Mormont, by that logic, many on the left declaring themselves the final arbiters of ...well, everything

What are you even talking about? This post is largely gibberish, a nebulous rant utterly unrelated to anything I said. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Which special rights are you speaking of? 

You assume that life is the important part, but it isn't. We don't protect animal life, or plant life, and for good reason. What we protect is personhood - and a person is someone with personal relationships. So a fetus, which does not have personal relationships with anybody, is not a person and hence not protected.

[SerHaHa]

That's a typical defense as well.  How is it gibberish, or any other adjectives you choose to attach,  you specifically said what I quoted, now you aren't going to defend it.  I made it pretty clear I think, you stated that being aborted is a better option to a life of potential suffering, did you not?

[SerHaHa]

Quote

So a fetus, which does not have personal relationships with anybody, is not a person and hence not protected.

So a person who chooses to live in seclusion during their lives, isn't a person, and no longer has the protections and right to life accorded by society to everyone else? You people are unbelievable. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Partisan democracy does need to die. Perhaps the road to a more pure democracy runs through a wasteland of oligarchy and autocracy.

How can you have a "pure democracy" that exists without partisanship?  Do you really believe people wouldn't band together and pool their voting power in a "pure democracy"?

[Jo498]

Sorry, but the Singerian personhood as all-relevant factor here is fringe philosophy and not the legal position (or the basis of that position) in most countries that determines the legal status of fetuses. And there are obviously a bunch of widely differing positions on the moral status of a fetus so one can hardly claim that something broadly Singerian is even close to generally accepted in the abortion debate. (This is clear from the fact that a lot of euthanasia cases where Singer has no problems to justify killing are legally prohibited in most countries (often regardless of their abortion laws.)

[The guy from the Vale]

That person who lives in seclusion certainly has people he or she knows from before choosing seclusion, right? 

We can quibble about the details of personhood, but to me it's pretty clear that somebody who is entirely incapable of communication is not a full person indeed.

[SerHaHa]

Quote

but to me it's pretty clear that somebody who is entirely incapable of communication is not a full person indeed.

Many handicapped are born without this capability as well.  Kill them too, once they grow to an age where it's obvious that they aren't able to learn how to communicate?

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Jo498 said:

Sorry, but the Singerian personhood as all-relevant factor here is fringe philosophy and not the legal position (or the basis of that position) in most countries that determines the legal status of fetuses. And there are obviously a bunch of widely differing positions on the moral status of a fetus so one can hardly claim that something broadly Singerian is even close to generally accepted in the abortion debate. (This is clear from the fact that a lot of euthanasia cases where Singer has no problems to justify killing are legally prohibited in most countries (often regardless of their abortion laws.)

Sure. The point is that it's still a consistent moral position that doesn't agree with SerHaHa. I never claimed everybody agreed with that position. But I also think we shouldn't legislate morality when said legislation is likely to make things worse, which would be the next step in the argument.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

2 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Many handicapped are born without this capability as well.  Kill them too, once they grow to an age where it's obvious that they aren't able to learn how to communicate?

Please consider all the Reichsmark you would be able to save. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

[The guy from the Vale]

4 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Many handicapped are born without this capability as well.  Kill them too, once they grow to an age where it's obvious that they aren't able to learn how to communicate?

I'm not saying we should kill all foeti either. But in both cases, survival of such a being (hard to call it a person, really) should be the decision of its caregivers.