Pages: 1 … 47 48 49 50 51 … 64

 

2012-11-06 05:02:08
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4474

AussieReaper wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's only relevant when it comes to foreign policy. Not sure how the US perceived Bush but the rest of the world thought he was a blithering idiot.
yet they followed his choices....go world?
That's what happens when you lie to the UN.

And when you do descent, you're labelled as the "old Europe" and suddenly French fries are termed "freedom fries"

'murica!
so you blindly follow the UN like some sheep?  no intelligence of your own?  and dont forget afghan...no UN lies there.  so safe to say you are just blaming others for your own mistakes.  no wonder you guys love obama.  makes sense now.
What are you looking at dicknose
2012-11-06 05:20:51
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6920|Moscow, Russia
ok, so last time the choice was: mr. zombie (with crazy shotgun toting cunt as his second) or mr. brown clown.
now it's mr. raving lunatic or the same brown clown.

some choice!
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2012-11-06 05:23:30
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6667|...

AussieReaper wrote:

War Man wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Interviewer: What's the capital of your state?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: Who is your state's governor?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: Roe vs Wade?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: President of the US...COME ON!
American interviewee: Uhhh...
European interviewee: Barack Obama. Can I take over now?
Interviewer: *facepalm*
Good thing I know those answers.
Roe vs Wade?
It's what made crime drop in the US
2012-11-06 05:48:42
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Dilbert_X wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

What exactly was there for the GOP to learn in the first place?  1 bad president for the GOP making stupid decisions and suddenly everyone in the GOP is an idiot?
OK, so its all Bush's fault alone now? I thought the President had no real power and couldn't take decisions?
Bush was the GOP's dumb puppet, you can't deny that.
Pretty much everyone in the Senate and the House are to blame for the initial bad decsisions as GOP and DNC reps both voted for war and the tax cuts.  Bush alone made the majority of the really stupid choices however.

Ty wrote:

What would happen if the rest of the world got to pick the US Presidential race?

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/602324_10151302741592990_1627228818_n.jpg


Looks decisive but I'd be interested to see the one ranked by support for Romney.
This type of information is less than useless.  America is "America" because of the choices of it's people regardless of how the rest of the world does business.  Sometimes this is good, sometimes bad.  But the day America starts caring which presidential candidate Peru, Mexico, Pakistan, Kenya, Panama and Indonesia want us to have, the sooner we will end up with governments like those places.  As bad as our government is, it's still leagues ahead of these places.

Also, one has to wonder why such places favor Obama so heavily.  I assure you it isn't because he is some sort of charismatic stallion.

m3thod wrote:

our first new member in 2 years who isn't a total bellend.
Thanks........I think?
2012-11-06 06:17:15
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6859|Purplicious Wisconsin

Dilbert_X wrote:

War Man wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Interviewer: What's the capital of your state?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: Who is your state's governor?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: Roe vs Wade?
American interviewee: Uhhh...
Interviewer: President of the US...COME ON!
American interviewee: Uhhh...
European interviewee: Barack Obama. Can I take over now?
Interviewer: *facepalm*
Good thing I know those answers.
Four of those answers are "Uhhh..."
I wouldn't say uhhh.

Capital of Wisconsin: Socialist Republic of Madison(okay it's just Madison)

Wisconsin's Governor: Scott Walker

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one

Current President of the US: Obama
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2012-11-06 06:26:46
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 06:53:44
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6859|Purplicious Wisconsin

Cybargs wrote:

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
That's not what the 13th amendment means for that situation.

Last edited by War Man (2012-11-06 07:15:04)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2012-11-06 07:02:39
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5181|Massachusetts, USA

War Man wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
That's not what the second amendment means for that situation.
Another A+ post.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2012-11-06 07:04:41
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6859|Purplicious Wisconsin

UnkleRukus wrote:

War Man wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
That's not what the second amendment means for that situation.
Another A+ post.
I appreciate your sarcasm.

Edit: My mind is a little weary right now, I'm gonna need to get more sleep later today.

Last edited by War Man (2012-11-06 07:15:35)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2012-11-06 07:11:45
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Cybargs wrote:

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
Since when does being pregnant equal involuntary servitude?  One may argue that in case of rape, pregnancy may be involuntary, but to insist that a pregnancy or child rearing is servitude means that you either a) don't know how to be a proper parent or b) you have your priorities in the wrong order.

The 13th amendment has no bearing on a Roe v Wade situation.  The only it possibly could is if a woman was being held as a sex slave and forced to bear children, in which case I think the abortion issue would definitely be playing second fiddle to the "I was held in a rape dungeon against my will" issue.
2012-11-06 07:16:17
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6917|PNW

I think being forced to bear the child of a rapist is in a way involuntary servitude (9 months of forced cowdom). What'd be horrifying is if it became mandated by state. But, you know, sit back and enjoy it.

War Man wrote:

I wouldn't say uhhh.

Capital of Wisconsin: Socialist Republic of Madison(okay it's just Madison)

Wisconsin's Governor: Scott Walker

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one

Current President of the US: Obama
You googled that didn't you.
2012-11-06 07:18:30
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6859|Purplicious Wisconsin

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I think being forced to bear the child of a rapist is in a way involuntary servitude. What's horrifying is if the state mandates it. But, you know, sit back and enjoy it.
Most likely states will have rape, incest, and risk of mother's death as exceptions at least.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

War Man wrote:

I wouldn't say uhhh.

Capital of Wisconsin: Socialist Republic of Madison(okay it's just Madison)

Wisconsin's Governor: Scott Walker

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one

Current President of the US: Obama
You googled that didn't you.
Edit: Haha, funny

Last edited by War Man (2012-11-06 07:20:41)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2012-11-06 07:45:11
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

Extra Medium wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

War Man wrote:

Roe vs Wade: Against, it should be a state decision, not a federal one
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
Since when does being pregnant equal involuntary servitude?  One may argue that in case of rape, pregnancy may be involuntary, but to insist that a pregnancy or child rearing is servitude means that you either a) don't know how to be a proper parent or b) you have your priorities in the wrong order.

The 13th amendment has no bearing on a Roe v Wade situation.  The only it possibly could is if a woman was being held as a sex slave and forced to bear children, in which case I think the abortion issue would definitely be playing second fiddle to the "I was held in a rape dungeon against my will" issue.
The 13th amendment does have a strong bearing on Roe V wade. If abortion was not legal, ergo a criminal/illegal act a mother is in involuntary servitude by the state if she does have the option whether or not to keep a child.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 08:02:45
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Cybargs wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

If you force a woman to have a pregnancy, you just violated that part of federal law.

I don't see much right wingers arguing its ok for states to violate the second amendment because "it should be a state decision not a federal one."
Since when does being pregnant equal involuntary servitude?  One may argue that in case of rape, pregnancy may be involuntary, but to insist that a pregnancy or child rearing is servitude means that you either a) don't know how to be a proper parent or b) you have your priorities in the wrong order.

The 13th amendment has no bearing on a Roe v Wade situation.  The only it possibly could is if a woman was being held as a sex slave and forced to bear children, in which case I think the abortion issue would definitely be playing second fiddle to the "I was held in a rape dungeon against my will" issue.
The 13th amendment does have a strong bearing on Roe V wade. If abortion was not legal, ergo a criminal/illegal act a mother is in involuntary servitude by the state if she does have the option whether or not to keep a child.
No, I'm sorry, you are wrong.  Roe v Wade was not a rape/incest case.  It was a right to terminate a pregnancy case.  Pre-Roe v Wade many states allowed legal abortion in the case of rape and incest, therefor nullifying your argument of "in ergo of a criminal act the government forces a woman into involuntary servitude by the state".  If you read even the least reliable sources on Roe v Wade you can find that "Roe" was voluntarily impregnated and then tried to lie about being raped in order to obtain a legal abortion.

In gist, Roe v Wade is simply put, a law that allows women to terminate pregnancy as THEY see fit, regardless of how the state feels about the situation.  Thus, as I said, it has zero correlation to the 13th amendment.

Last edited by Extra Medium (2012-11-06 08:03:59)

2012-11-06 08:09:58
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

Extra Medium wrote:

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong.  Roe v Wade was not a rape/incest case.  It was a right to terminate a pregnancy case.  Pre-Roe v Wade many states allowed legal abortion in the case of rape and incest, therefor nullifying your argument of "in ergo of a criminal act the government forces a woman into involuntary servitude by the state".  .
yeah but if a girl gets knocked up she has to keep the kid or she goes to jail. makes really good sense there buddy. how is that not invulantary servitude
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 08:27:34
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4474
i am willing to bet a large majority of obama voters dont even make enough money to pay for all of the govt programs they cherish.  mostly college kids, minorities, etc.  the sad part is i make enough and have to pay for obamaphones, obamacare, etc. and do not benefit from any of it.  and that is fine because unlike a lot of people id rather earn my way.  so, to the obama supporters if he wins, you are welcome.  if he does not win, get a job.
What are you looking at dicknose
2012-11-06 08:28:58
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

Frank Reynolds wrote:

the sad part is i make enough and have to pay for obamaphones, obamacare, etc. and do not benefit from any of it.
You don't think you'll benefit from people in your country being healthier and better educated? lolwat.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 08:37:15
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Cybargs wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong.  Roe v Wade was not a rape/incest case.  It was a right to terminate a pregnancy case.  Pre-Roe v Wade many states allowed legal abortion in the case of rape and incest, therefor nullifying your argument of "in ergo of a criminal act the government forces a woman into involuntary servitude by the state".  .
yeah but if a girl gets knocked up she has to keep the kid or she goes to jail. makes really good sense there buddy. how is that not invulantary servitude
If it isn't rape or incest and a girl gets impregnated that means the conception was voluntary.  It's not involuntary servitude if you voluntarily put yourself in the position in the first place.  What the girl is actually asking for in that situation is legal murder.

Cybargs wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

the sad part is i make enough and have to pay for obamaphones, obamacare, etc. and do not benefit from any of it.
You don't think you'll benefit from people in your country being healthier and better educated? lolwat.
The issue isn't if it benefits us or if it is in our best interest, the issue is how do we pay for it.  Our country already runs in the red as it is, we can't afford new and more expensive programs if we have NO way to pay for them.  It in a sense actually, causes harm to the people it helps and even more harm to the more well off people that wouldn't have benefited from it in the first place.

(Also, what is up with having to wait 33 minutes before I can post again?  Most aggressive anti-flooding filter I've ever seen.)

Last edited by Extra Medium (2012-11-06 08:40:33)

2012-11-06 08:44:42
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

Extra Medium wrote:

If it isn't rape or incest and a girl gets impregnated that means the conception was voluntary.
Yeah because all women can completely control their reproductive system. It doesn't really help when the same states that want Roe v Wade repealed also have abstinence education or don't adequately provide contraception which also lead to HIGH teen pregnancy rates. GG republicants.

So much for individual liberty.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 08:59:19
Frank Reynolds
Member
+65|4474

Cybargs wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

the sad part is i make enough and have to pay for obamaphones, obamacare, etc. and do not benefit from any of it.
You don't think you'll benefit from people in your country being healthier and better educated? lolwat.
havent benefited yet...when will it start?  welfare and free education have been around for a while now.  obama aint doing anything new, he is just renaming or adding more to it.  so his solution is to add to something that does not work.  brilliant.
What are you looking at dicknose
2012-11-06 09:07:45
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Cybargs wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

If it isn't rape or incest and a girl gets impregnated that means the conception was voluntary.
Yeah because all women can completely control their reproductive system. It doesn't really help when the same states that want Roe v Wade repealed also have abstinence education or don't adequately provide contraception which also lead to HIGH teen pregnancy rates. GG republicants.

So much for individual liberty.
If it isn't rape or incest and the girl is pregnant, how the hell was it not voluntary!?  Did she trip, fall and land on a dick?  Perhaps it was the second immaculate conception and Jesus almost showed up before he got aborted.

And yes, women have control over their reproductive system, same as men.  It's called "not putting out".  If you aren't prepared to deal with a child, you don't have any business having sex.  Once you make the decision to have sex and roll that dice, you should have to deal with the consequences of having a good roll and getting away with a good time and having a bad roll and getting knocked up.   People playing craps in Vegas don't get their money back after they lose a bet because it wasn't "a voluntary expenditure".  Does it infringe on their personal liberty when the dealer rakes their chips into the hole after they lost the gamble?
2012-11-06 09:08:08
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6556|'Murka

Cybargs wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

If it isn't rape or incest and a girl gets impregnated that means the conception was voluntary.
Yeah because all women can completely control their reproductive system.
I'm pro-choice, but this counter makes no sense. It's not a matter of "controlling" their reproductive system (even though they can, with contraceptives)--it's a matter of "controlling" their voluntary actions (along with the voluntary actions of their partner) which result in a pregnancy.

You're acting as if getting pregnant after having unprotected sex would come as a surprise or something.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-11-06 09:29:30
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861

FEOS wrote:

I'm pro-choice, but this counter makes no sense. It's not a matter of "controlling" their reproductive system (even though they can, with contraceptives)--it's a matter of "controlling" their voluntary actions (along with the voluntary actions of their partner) which result in a pregnancy.

You're acting as if getting pregnant after having unprotected sex would come as a surprise or something.
Not saying it should be a "oh lol surprise hurp derp youre preggaz" but women should have the freedom of choice whether they want to have an abortion or not, in the end it is their body and their decision.

medium wrote:

If it isn't rape or incest and the girl is pregnant, how the hell was it not voluntary!?
Yeah because all pregnancies are voluntary and no accidents will ever happen.

so much for personal freedom eh, letting people choose what they want to do with their bodies.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2012-11-06 09:38:37
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|4340|Oklahoma

Cybargs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm pro-choice, but this counter makes no sense. It's not a matter of "controlling" their reproductive system (even though they can, with contraceptives)--it's a matter of "controlling" their voluntary actions (along with the voluntary actions of their partner) which result in a pregnancy.

You're acting as if getting pregnant after having unprotected sex would come as a surprise or something.
Not saying it should be a "oh lol surprise hurp derp youre preggaz" but women should have the freedom of choice whether they want to have an abortion or not, in the end it is their body and their decision.

medium wrote:

If it isn't rape or incest and the girl is pregnant, how the hell was it not voluntary!?
Yeah because all pregnancies are voluntary and no accidents will ever happen.

so much for personal freedom eh, letting people choose what they want to do with their bodies.
.............




Your last post was so incredibly stupid I'm honestly not even sure how to reply to it.
2012-11-06 09:45:04
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6861
guess we have someone who doesn't like giving people choice eh, lol let the state decide, BUT NOT THAT GODDAMN INDIVIDUAL
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

 

Pages: 1 … 47 48 49 50 51 … 64

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard