So no collusion.

[Guest]

@SFVikeFan said:

@savannahskol said:

And you'd rather the violence continue to the women and babies via abortion?  
End the cycle of violence, bro.  
Not all of us are so lucky to have fortunate conditions of conception.  Don't be a conceptionist.  

That is the most disgusting, fucked up thing I've ever read in my life.

I pray you don't have daughters or granddaughters.


So if your little girl was raped as a 12 yr old, you'd push her to have the child.  Then what?  You know the rapist has rights too.  Do you invite him over for Christmas and Thanksgiving?  Pat him on the back, tell your daughter she must accept him as the father because we can't all be so lucky to have fortunate conceptions?

Holy fucking shit.

Fire down, Sparky.   



Proven rapists don't have visitation rights while they're sitting in jail, bro.  
Move to the south (you took pot-shots at)... we prosecute/take that seriously.  Maybe in Portland, you don't.  *shrugs*

And if they're out of jail, there are further protections.  (Think restraining orders/male family members & the 2nd amendment )

AGR just told you, rape/incest (tough one, I admit) is 0.97 as the reason(s) for all abortions.  You didn't contest that figure.  
(actually, AGR reported .97.... I wrote 0.97 for effect)

Less than 1% is a lot, huh?  Only if ALL LAWS were subject to the "yeah, but 1%" rule, what a wonderful world it would be.  

This topic is complicated enough, without throwing out red herrings.  

[Guest]

@KingBash said:

@savannahskol said:

@KingBash said:
Having said that,

one party understands that climate change is a major threat
obsessing over abortions is a huge waste of time
our current idiot is so hated on the national stage
he's weakening our national security because of popularity alone.

"fake...fake...fake...fake"   =)

Go learn something. Please. Turn off Fox and try to learn something.

No.  

The correct answer was "My ideas are real, and they're spectacular!" 

I miss the old KB.  

[Guest]

Back on topic. 



Within first minute of interview....

Barr: 

"Mueller never looked at government's activities..."
"The IG of the AG is looking at FISA warrants/ abuses...."
"Answers to my questions  (when I assumed the job) were not available...."
"I've asked questions about spying, and the answers have been inadequate..."
"I've heard some explanations, but they don't hang together. Provoked more questions, then answers...."
"The American people have to find out what their government was doing....should be worried not only about foreign 
  powers, but should also be concerned if their own government  put their thumb on the scale...."

^^ that was in the first minute.  

There's a new sheriff in town.  

[Guest]

@savannahskol said:

@SFVikeFan said:

@savannahskol said:

And you'd rather the violence continue to the women and babies via abortion?  
End the cycle of violence, bro.  
Not all of us are so lucky to have fortunate conditions of conception.  Don't be a conceptionist.  

That is the most disgusting, fucked up thing I've ever read in my life.

I pray you don't have daughters or granddaughters.


So if your little girl was raped as a 12 yr old, you'd push her to have the child.  Then what?  You know the rapist has rights too.  Do you invite him over for Christmas and Thanksgiving?  Pat him on the back, tell your daughter she must accept him as the father because we can't all be so lucky to have fortunate conceptions?

Holy fucking shit.

Fire down, Sparky.   



Proven rapists don't have visitation rights while they're sitting in jail, bro.  
Move to the south (you took pot-shots at)... we prosecute/take that seriously.  Maybe in Portland, you don't.  *shrugs*

And if they're out of jail, there are further protections.  (Think restraining orders/male family members & the 2nd amendment )

AGR just told you, rape/incest (tough one, I admit) is 0.97 as the reason(s) for all abortions.  You didn't contest that figure.  
(actually, AGR reported .97.... I wrote 0.97 for effect)

Less than 1% is a lot, huh?  Only if ALL LAWS were subject to the "yeah, but 1%" rule, what a wonderful world it would be.  

This topic is complicated enough, without throwing out red herrings.  

I'm glad you think that you two think that ANY number is acceptable.  I'm glad you think there needs to be a certain threshold of how many times this needs to happen before the act itself becomes disgusting and vile.

And for the record I live in the south, I deal with uneducated hillbillies just like you on a daily basis.  Clearly you have no idea how very little time rapists spend  in jail IF they actually get a conviction,  nor did you bother to say what happens when they get OUT, so you keep  minimizing what a fucking sick inhumane policy this is. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/in-7-us-state...st-fathers

There are seven states without laws preventing rapists from gaining custody of children conceived without consent. In addition to Maryland, such states include Alabama, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL



Under current Maryland law, if a rape victim decides to put her child up for adoption, she can be faced with another hurdle: permission from her rapist.
"It's insane to think that if a woman who became pregnant as a result of rape and wanted to continue her pregnancy and give her baby up for adoption would somehow need her rapist’s permission," said Kagan, a Democrat from Montgomery County.
My name is Shauna Prewitt. You do not know me, but you should," she wrote. "I am one of the approximately 25,000 women who every year become pregnant as a result of rape, and I would like to help you better 'empathize' with my story."



25,000 pregnancies from rape victims every year, still not enough?  Oh but it's only 7 states out of 50, so that's only 14% right?  And what do you know, Alabama is one of those 7.  So now look at what a woman's options are after getting pregnant from being raped in Alabama genius - her rapist has more rights than her.
Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you?  Is it too hard to just admit that any number is not okay, that we shouldn't allow this?  Or do you have to continue to defend, and pick apart the data saying it's not a high enough number to care about?
SICK, SICK, SICK

[Guest]

OK, a few things:

1.  "News" from Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Blaze, Breitbart (we are to news what the Dukes of Hazzard are to documentaries!) and other organizations that are known for their biases...will be ridiculed, mocked, and marginalized.  That's not news, that's seemingly babble for the insecure that desperately need someone on TV to tell them how to think.

2.  My son did volunteer, and did so eyes-open.  The women in these treasonous states that are playing high-stakes poker with their reproductive rights are consistently reporting as feeling terrified, marginalized...and very much persecuted by their state governments.  That's kinda opposite of "Land of the Free", and should guarantee brutal prison sentences for the legislators involved.  The women did NOT volunteer for their "representatives" to be moronic filth.

3.  As far as "gift from God"...well...I can agree with the spirit of that, but I have spent my entire life seeing that man is unworthy and largely unable to represent any, much less THE, higher power.  Therefore, I see him as more of a cosmic gift than one from the ol' King James Edition.

4.  The most obvious part of this: none of us guys can have, even with piles of education and information, a true understanding of what the women go through.  We CAN'T.  Claiming otherwise is one of the oldest and most damning lies in history.  While I do believe in both biological parents having rights, when it comes to the pregnancy...she has most of the rights, because she has to go through it and the recovery in ways that are beyond ANYTHING the man can compare to.

The GOP has a horrible recent history with women, between the "lie back and enjoy it" suggestion for rape to thinking that a "rape kit" is used to clean rapist semen out of a woman...so, as a party, they're too completely stupid to have any say in their reproductive rights.

[Guest]

Oh, and one more thing:

maybe not rape, maybe not incest...but babies born because the guy chickens out and leaves her in "a family way" will be a helluva higher number than the rapes.

Just a gentle reminder that HE can leave, even if it's the gutless choice.  She has to deal with whatever happens going forward.

Not even slightly equivalent.

Also...well, ol' A1Clinton laid out the GOP position in previous posts pretty blatantly:

Pre-birth- THOSE ARE BABIES, THEY'RE PEOPLE, AND ABORTION IS MURDER!!!!

Post-birth- WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR PROGRAMS/EDUCATION FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS??!!

So, when people try and tell me it's about the GOP's "love and value for human life"...I've seen decades of exactly that example, so...I call OBVIOUS bullshit.

Individuals may care, but the party is angling for power/votes.  Period.

[Guest]

LMAO

Zanjohnsonsteinlgbqmnop at it again.  

I should have to pay more taxes for other kids born if I am pro-life?

I can’t be for adoption?  Or charitable contributions and less gocernment?

You can’t handle the consequences, don’t have sex.  

Sick of Z’s big government lies.  

RUSSIA!  WOMEN’S RIGHT TO MURDER.  CHEESEMAN BAD.  

[Guest]

@A1Janitor said:
LMAO

Zanjohnsonsteinlgbqmnop at it again.  

I should have to pay more taxes for other kids born if I am pro-life?

I can’t be for adoption?  Or charitable contributions and less gocernment?

You can’t handle the consequences, don’t have sex.  

Sick of Z’s big government lies.  

RUSSIA!  WOMEN’S RIGHT TO MURDER.  CHEESEMAN BAD.  

Yeeesh...

1.  Nope, it'd be out of the same pool.  Should you pay less for turning you back on kids once they're born?

2.  Adoption is great...but what gives you the right to make that decision for complete strangers...which means departments of people, adding to government?

3.  You don't address, at all (consistently), the very different position the women are in than the men.

MILLENIA-OLD NEWS FLASH: PEOPLE HAVE SEX, MANY PREGNANCIES AREN'T EXPECTED.

(I'm pretty sure that was old news in ancient Greece)

You should have no authority over anyone's organs but your own, unless it's shared rights regarding minor children under your legal care.  How is that complicated?

[Guest]

@Zanary said:

@A1Janitor said:
LMAO

Zanjohnsonsteinlgbqmnop at it again.  

I should have to pay more taxes for other kids born if I am pro-life?

I can’t be for adoption?  Or charitable contributions and less gocernment?

You can’t handle the consequences, don’t have sex.  

Sick of Z’s big government lies.  

RUSSIA!  WOMEN’S RIGHT TO MURDER.  CHEESEMAN BAD.  

You should have no authority over anyone's organs but your own, unless it's shared rights regarding minor children under your legal care.  How is that complicated?

And this right here is why its pointless to discuss abortion.  I’d assume that everyone believes its wrong to kill a baby post birth?  They are their own person with their own protections under the laws of the land.

Its that you and I and everyone else disagree when that time of protection should kick in. Is fertilization? Heartbeat? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester?  3rd?  Full term?  Should abortion be legal as theyre exiting the womb?  Heck anytime before their 18th birthday?

That line in the sand is different for each individual and its why we’ll never move that line much. I can say that I was soft prolife prior to kids but after having them and seeing just how vundereable they are long after birth its probably made me really reevaluate when that protection should kick in.  

[Guest]

@AGRforever said:

@Zanary said:

@A1Janitor said:
LMAO

Zanjohnsonsteinlgbqmnop at it again.  

I should have to pay more taxes for other kids born if I am pro-life?

I can’t be for adoption?  Or charitable contributions and less gocernment?

You can’t handle the consequences, don’t have sex.  

Sick of Z’s big government lies.  

RUSSIA!  WOMEN’S RIGHT TO MURDER.  CHEESEMAN BAD.  

You should have no authority over anyone's organs but your own, unless it's shared rights regarding minor children under your legal care.  How is that complicated?

And this right here is why its pointless to discuss abortion.  I’d assume that everyone believes its wrong to kill a baby post birth?  They are their own person with their own protections under the laws of the land.

Its that you and I and everyone else disagree when that time of protection should kick in. Is fertilization? Heartbeat? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester?  3rd?  Full term?  Should abortion be legal as theyre exiting the womb?  Heck anytime before their 18th birthday?

That line in the sand is different for each individual and its why we’ll never move that line much. I can say that I was soft prolife prior to kids but after having them and seeing just how vundereable they are long after birth its probably made me really reevaluate when that protection should kick in.  

It's not just about the fetus/baby/whatever...it's the absolute arrogance that anyone but the mother has the right to tell her to undergo months of what can be dangerous pregnancy, with birth itself coming with its own mortality rates.  How can anyone believe that they have any right to that woman's body, her health, the potential risking of her life?

Getting my son into the world was very difficult, so much that we knew the emergency triage staff by name across all shifts.  We were told that we might have to make the decision to abort multiple times...but docs managed to make saves at several points.  Watching my wife go through that was brutal, if ultimately very worth it.

I couldn't pretend to have the authority to make those decisions for strangers, especially any woman that was left high and dry by the father...and that's a common story.  I lack that particular arrogance.

So, as horrid as I find the whole topic to be from any angle...stripping women of their choices to face all the medical/hormonal/potentially life-risking issues or not?  No.