Message
The Tea Party is a totally fictional construct. They've been around forever. They're the social conservative wing of the GOP. In the 60s they were the John Birch society. Nothing new here whatsoever.
Or course, you need to change the packaging now and again. No one's going to do a new story on "Same old resentful old white people are grousing again."
Or course, you need to change the packaging now and again. No one's going to do a new story on "Same old resentful old white people are grousing again."
whether Sam had lived or died, the driver would face legal proceedings, a possible jail sentence, and a whole lifetime of guilt.
You must live outside of the US. In our country, the driver who killed Sam while speeding would likely face no penalty whatsoever. In fact, they'd probably be offered free counseling to get over the trauma of them killing a pedestrian. After all, killing pedestrians is just a unavoidable tragedy that could happen to anyone.
The reason we have so many dead at the hands of drivers in this country is that we have zero accountability.
Anonymous wrote:The people who want to regulate what you eat, what you drive, what you say etc are all up in arms because the government is now submitting them to one extra procedure before they extinguish a life. Nice liberal hypocrisy.
Probably going to need an example of this. You hear a lot of moaning about this stuff from the right, but not a whole lot of substance. Your side is the one that's the party of curtailing freedom. Own it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I am ok with the day after pill (or week after pill, or whatever it is). I am ok with birth control. So if you make a mistake, or something unplanned happens, take the day after pill. But 2-3 months later I think its too late, sorry.
I consider myself a pretty liberal woman, and I've always wanted to be pro-choice, but I kind of agree with the above. I could never really fully feel comfortable with the fact that, although it is a woman's body, technically the baby growing inside is a separate entity, life, body, whatever you want to call it, and an abortion is ending a life. I want to be pro-choice, but I have always felt uneasy about sanctioning termination of a human life. I should clarify that I'm talking about after the growing baby has characteristics that, in my opinion, make it human (e.g., a developed and differentiated nervous system, beating heart, etc.). Earlier than that in a pregnancy, I think it's a sufficiently murky and gray area, and abortion very early, in my book, is 'okay,' for lack of a better word.
Also, my thoughts sometimes turn to the dads... it's the woman's body that is carrying the baby, but the baby is 50% dad's baby...so what happens if he wants the baby but the mom wants to terminate? It's such a tough subject. I wish we could just eliminate the need for abortions, as a PP said.
The law as it is now needs to be changed to determine a point where the baby is it's own entity. It is very barbaric and ignorant to think that just because its physically inside the woman that it is her property, I still can't believe this is the test of what is part of a person vs what is not, using this logic would a woman be able to take ownership of any being or item but consuming it? . I also feel it is unfair that a man has no say in whether a termination occurs or not.
Can anyone tell me when we legally require a living adult to submit their body for the needs of another living adult? Are there any instances where, for example, we would force someone to donate blood against their will? A liver? A kidney? Here's a hypothetical: I'm mugged, and in the course of being mugged, I am also stabbed. The mugger/stabber is apprehended. I need blood to survive, but oh noes! The only person whose blood is compatible with mine is the mugger/stabber, and he doesn't consent! Do our laws require that we strap his ass down and take his blood without his consent?
I'm not aware of any such legal requirement (and please correct me if I'm wrong). So why in the world would we require a woman to submit her body for the needs of a fetus? Why does a fetus have more rights than a living adult?
I'm the 13:32 poster. I understand your point; it's a good point.
Such a difficult issue all around...wish we could eliminate the need for abortions.
Yes, it's too bad some of the same evil motherfuckers are trying as hard as they possibly can to deny access to contraception as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ashamed to live in VA.
Pls move to MD. Better chances for my kids to get into the good state schools.
Competition is the least of your kids' problems - I'd be more converned about the apparent lack of intelligence in their gene pool.
ohhhhhhhh, soo funny. A lot of the native born northern Virginians are not happy with all the northerners that moved down here for jobs and lower costs of living while attempting to lib it up.
Don't forget adding a massive amount of free-market tax revenue to the existing VA tax base of "sucking on the government teat via military pork and ag subsidies."
Anonymous wrote:RantingAtheist wrote:I think we need to pass legislation to force men to have a large zucchini shoved up their ass before they can be permitted to receive treatment for disorders of the prostate. This is not punishment, of course, simply "educational". Many men don't even know where their prostate is.
Does your prostate have a heart beat, a forming brain etc... if so you need to go to the hospital and win a prize because ITS A MIRACLE.
Whether a prostate has a heart beat or not is irrelevant. There are many studies linking poor diet to prostate cancer in men. This "Male Zuchini Anal-Insertion Awareness Act" is merely an educational effort that all men should welcome. Just as women can't be trusted to make informed decisions, and need to be compelled to understand their medical condition via vaginal ultrasound, society has a responsibility to our men that can only be dispatched by shoving a zucchini up their ass.
As in the case of VA's state-compelled rape law, it's only about making sure patients are not victimized by care providers who fail to properly inform them. Right? I mean, otherwise someone might misinterpret the law as an intrusion between a woman and her doctor by the same superstitious panty-sniffers who are trying to outlaw birth control.
I think we need to pass legislation to force men to have a large zucchini shoved up their ass before they can be permitted to receive treatment for disorders of the prostate. This is not punishment, of course, simply "educational". Many men don't even know where their prostate is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Scholarly articles start with a summary. What I hate is posters who still won't budge from an ignorant point of view even when presented with 10 sources of scholarly research.
Well, it is called 'faith'.
RAWPGG - Ranting Atheist Who Plays Gotcha Games. If you respond, she'll call you over-sensitive. She'll feel so pleased with herself, because this is probably the only thing going on in her sad little life that actually produces the result she wants.
So don't play her game by responding to this.
You make an excellent point. The persecution of Christians in this country is the great untold story of the last fifty years. It needs to end.