"
"
"
I can kinda see the argument that the Republicans "shot first." I really can. But the Dems have tossed so much more back in retaliation. This type of escalating obstruction really should stop. For example, it's not healthy to spend two years investigating a new president on bullshit claims, just because you can't fathom how the other candidate managed to lose a rigged election.
I call total bullshit on that one. You are falling for the lies of a pathological liar.
First, Republicans were in complete control 2016 through 2018. Secondly, Mueller, Rosenstein and company were Republicans appointed by Republicans. Third there was plenty of suspicious activities going on that triggered the appointment of Mueller.
It's interesting how your reasons have nothing logically to do with whether the 2016 election is rigged.
There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the DNC to rig the 2016 Democrat primary. Furthermore, former (interim) DNC chair Donna Brazile wrote a book about it.
There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the mainstream media to give preferential coverage to "Pied Piper" candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary — meaning they rigged BOTH primaries.
Did they rig the general election? Obviously not well enough. But I'd say that if your organization is choosing both candidates in a general election, that qualifies as rigging the election. The Clinton campaign cheated Bernie and steered the Republican nomination towards the worst candidate they could find and still lost.
Wikileaks is a Kremlin controlled disinformation outlet.
Any signature worth using is against the rules. Therefore, no signature will be found here.
|
Posted byThe_Impeacheron May 13, 2019, 4:09:05 PM
|
"
"
"
I can kinda see the argument that the Republicans "shot first." I really can. But the Dems have tossed so much more back in retaliation. This type of escalating obstruction really should stop. For example, it's not healthy to spend two years investigating a new president on bullshit claims, just because you can't fathom how the other candidate managed to lose a rigged election.
I call total bullshit on that one. You are falling for the lies of a pathological liar.
First, Republicans were in complete control 2016 through 2018. Secondly, Mueller, Rosenstein and company were Republicans appointed by Republicans. Third there was plenty of suspicious activities going on that triggered the appointment of Mueller.
It's interesting how your reasons have nothing logically to do with whether the 2016 election is rigged.
There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the DNC to rig the 2016 Democrat primary. Furthermore, former (interim) DNC chair Donna Brazile wrote a book about it.
There is evidence, via WikiLeaks, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the mainstream media to give preferential coverage to "Pied Piper" candidates like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican primary — meaning they rigged BOTH primaries.
Did they rig the general election? Obviously not well enough. But I'd say that if your organization is choosing both candidates in a general election, that qualifies as rigging the election. The Clinton campaign cheated Bernie and steered the Republican nomination towards the worst candidate they could find and still lost.
Seems to be apples and oranges to me. Your post was apparently based on nonsense lies spewed by the pathological liar that had nothing to do with the Democratic primary. Even IF the primary was rigged against Bernie that has nothing to do with Trump. I stand by my post.
__________________________
"
I can kinda see the argument that the Republicans "shot first." I really can. But the Dems have tossed so much more back in retaliation. This type of escalating obstruction really should stop. For example, it's not healthy to spend two years investigating a new president on bullshit claims, just because you can't fathom how the other candidate managed to lose a rigged election.
I call total bullshit on that one. You are falling for the lies of a pathological liar.
First, Republicans were in complete control 2016 through 2018. Secondly, Mueller, Rosenstein and company were Republicans appointed by Republicans. Third there was plenty of suspicious activities going on that triggered the appointment of Mueller.
Over 430 threads discussing labyrinth problems with over 1040 posters in support (thread # 1702621) Thank you all! GGG will implement a different method for ascension in PoE2. Retired!
|
Posted byTurtledoveon May 13, 2019, 4:12:01 PM
|
"
Wikileaks is a Kremlin controlled disinformation outlet.
In arguendo, let's pretend you are correct.
Is Gmail a Kremlin asset?
-------
Check out what I found while looking up if Rosenstein was a Republican:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein (archived)
Call him Drumpf if you like, he's still your President.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 13, 2019, 4:43:30 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcBon May 13, 2019, 4:15:16 PM
|
"
"
"
I'm not sure what your getting at with your "loads of kids get made with that 100% safe route".
Give me some fringe article about a women getting pregnant after swallowing or having the guy cum on her belly.
There's plenty of documentation on why pulling out isn't a reliable method on wikipedia.
Unless you are talking about only doing fellatio/handjob/anal, which isn't what most people would understand when reading your previous comment.
That being said, in the case of anal, there's a chance of pregnancy (I don't have the stats, but it's likely very small, as it either requires some damage in the inner membrane, or needs to get through it without a hole), and there's one documented case of fellatio leading to pregnancy, although the circumstances are so absurd that you can't really fault the person, as the sperm got through a gun wound she got after a fellatio, and the sperm went then all the way from the stomach to where it needed to go.
I don't have the references at hand, so feel free to not trust what I am telling you there, as those are "fun facts", not my point which is in my first paragraph.
As for the rest of the discussion, let's face it, many teenagers and young adults are going to have sex without a good understanding of the risks, and "no penetration" speeches have very little influence on that.
On another note, do we have any females here to give their point of view on the matter? They are the most impacted, and should be the ones whose point of view is the most important, right?
I'm going to ignore the fringe cases if you don't mind, however quirky and interesting they are.
My position is quite simple, take personal responsibility for the outcome of your actions and don't sacrifice potential life in order to avoid it.
All most people seem to do is prove the massive amount of methods people in this day and age are previe to when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
Do a combo for all i care if the aim is "no child", which is a perfectly valid strategy when it comes to sex.
If i tell you "you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a child using a condom" and you go "okay" and proceed, then the girl gets pregnant, i don't really understand what claim a person can make to end that life.
I can understand the sophistry or the mental gymnastics to justify the action but i fail to see how it's morally correct.
Is the claim of ignorance or bad-luck enough to justify ending a potential life?
It's a moral weighting game, on the one hand justification to let a child live and on the other a justification to let the child die.
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoemon May 13, 2019, 4:49:42 PMOn Probation
|
"
If i tell you "you have a 1 in 100 chance of getting a child using a condom" and you go "okay" and proceed, then the girl gets pregnant, i don't really understand what claim a person can make to end that life.
I can understand the sophistry or the mental gymnastics to justify the action but i fail to see how it's morally correct.
Is the claim of ignorance or bad-luck enough to justify ending a potential life?
It's a moral weighting game, on the one hand justification to let a child live and on the other a justification to let the child die.
Peace,
-Boem-
The bottom line is that it isn't alive.
|
Posted byMrCoo1on May 13, 2019, 5:20:31 PM
|
"
The bottom line is that it isn't alive.
I had this fantasy while reading this pop up in my mind of you using that argument against a mother that just had a miscarriage.
"don't worry, it wasn't alive anyway".
Peace,
-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
|
Posted byBoemon May 13, 2019, 5:43:22 PMOn Probation
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Great song. I appreciate the humor even as a Roman Catholic.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderionon May 13, 2019, 5:44:44 PM
|
"
"
The bottom line is that it isn't alive.
I had this fantasy while reading this pop up in my mind of you using that argument against a mother that just had a miscarriage.
"don't worry, it wasn't alive anyway".
Peace,
-Boem-
Losing the potential to a baby, even if it wasn't alive is different.
It's a psychological thing.
Still, a fetus isn't a human until it can survive on its own in the outside. It's not alive until it can react to stimuli.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
Last edited by faerwin on May 13, 2019, 5:57:47 PM
|
Posted byfaerwinon May 13, 2019, 5:57:00 PMAlpha Member
|
"
"Our prognosis is as follows: since it's already been three weeks, we anticipate around 8 and a half months of coma, possibly less. After that, the patient should awake, but they will have complete amnesia — their mind will be completely blank. They won't know how to feed themselves, drink from a cup, talk, walk, crawl, or use the bathroom. An estimated three years of intense rehabilitation therapy will be required to retrain these basic skills. Even then, a great many more advanced life skills, important pieces of general knowledge, and pearls of wisdom will be missing. We estimate a full recovery would take about 16-20 years."
When put in the proper context, pulling the plug becomes noticeably more tempting.
19-22 years? Yikes. Why not just allow pulling the plug at age 3, 7 or for most parents when they become unruly teenagers?
There were cultures that didn't name children until they were 2-3 years old, because in their minds the person was never really there without a name and the children died so easily.
As for the self care criteria - Stephen Hawking would have been just another clump of cells subject to a "Choice" removal. If we set up some sort of mental awareness standards, that will just be co-opted to include a minimum of globalism and climate alarmism.
We're sorry, but according to DNC standards - the following 4.2 billion people aren't really alive...
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
Posted byDalaiLamaon May 13, 2019, 6:35:01 PM
|
"
It’s one thing to be against someone making a certain decision and another to be against them having the option to make that decision in the first place.
It's one thing to be against someone robbing a bank, and another to be against them having the option to rob a bank in the first place.
It's one thing to be against someone using assaulting a helpless senior citizen, and another to be against them having the option to assault a helpless senior citizen in the first place.
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
Posted byDalaiLamaon May 13, 2019, 6:39:20 PM
|
