Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 244: All Presidents of the Last Century are Criminals

(+) Yeah! (+)

MoogleKupo141 posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I want to kill babies.

What is your position on drinking the spinal fluid afterwards for eternal youth?

Asking for a friend

Very in favor

also love to grind their bones to dust and then snort that dust

My friend says MoogleKupo141 2020
---

Well, of course they didn't find anything. Hillary destroyed all the evidence.

And as for Biden vs. Hillary, I definitely would choose Biden. While the policies may end up being the same, at least Biden actually cares about the working class and is honestly trying to help.
---

Welp looks like this topic has officially confirmed that the left likes eating babies
---

Im not The Left, Im a staunch Tea Party conservative
---

Who amongst us can honestly say they wouldnt slurp down some ice cold adrenochrome?
---

but if you had a time machine would you eat baby hitler
---

Tulsi and her campaign are completely incoherent, but it's certainly believable she would carry a grudge after Tulsi endorsed Bernie last time. If you recall, after losing to Obama in 08, Hillary had a giant list of betrayals sorted by the level of betrayed she felt. That seems a bit vindictive.

And it is wildly stupid to be fear mongering about Jill Stein, who is not even a candidate for the green party this year, it will almost certainly be Howie Hawkins. And if 'American assets' tell us we have to keep doing forever wars and universal healthcare will never ever happen, then the only rational answer is eat all the rich regardless of nation. They are useless and do not have any of our interests in mind.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Nobody "wants to kill babies", and very few want open borders

If you believe abortion is killing babies then almost the entire Democratic party wants the option to kill babies allowed.

---

If you believe abortion is killing babies then you're an idiot.
---

Corrik7 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Nobody "wants to kill babies", and very few want open borders

If you believe abortion is killing babies then almost the entire Democratic party wants the option to kill babies allowed.

if you believe that lowering the capital gains tax is killing babies then almost the entire Republican party wants the option to kill babies allowed
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Nobody "wants to kill babies", and very few want open borders

If you believe abortion is killing babies then almost the entire Democratic party wants the option to kill babies allowed.

if you believe that lowering the capital gains tax is killing babies then almost the entire Republican party wants the option to kill babies allowed

No, lowering the capital gains tax will allow parents to lavish more wealth on their babies. That is the opposite of killing babies.
---

not if the rich babies spend all their wealth on heroin and OD
---

Clearly that's why there needs to be a war on drugs
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

not if the rich babies spend all their wealth on heroin and OD

Everyone knows that Democrats are the party of drugs. Those babies will need a lot of money to be able to afford to go to rehab in a resort on the ocean. That costs like $40,000 a month.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

If you believe abortion is killing babies then you're an idiot.

Real convincing.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

If you're on the far right, a terrorist, or a bigot, she'll refuse to say much bad about you

But oh dear god watch out if you're on the left

Okay I cannot let this Tulsi slander slide unchallenged.

She will GLADLY go to war to kill terrorists, as long as you don't also do a regime change in the process.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

If you believe abortion is killing babies then you're an idiot.

Real convincing.

Hes not wrong
---

How's this for convincing, then.

Jewish law dictates that it is not only a moral right, but an imperative commandment, to allow women to make the choice for abortion or not; and that she engages in no sin regardless of her decision. Rather, the only sinners are those that try to interfere with her decision.

This isn't just the interpretation by progressive reform rabbis, either. Every major Jewish school of thought in the United States has put forth this sort of analysis. To limit the options of reproductive health for women is to infringe upon the rights of all Jewish women.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Hes not wrong

Iyo

---

Now you can say you don't care about the rights of Jews, or about Jewish laws, or about Jewish rabbinical teachings. That's fine.

But you're a hypocrite if you say it's ok for one group to push its religious agenda and not another.
---

Corrik do you believe an opinion is valid just because a lot of people share it?
---

Corrik7 posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Hes not wrong

Iyo

It's not opinion. Its medical science.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

How's this for convincing, then.

Jewish law dictates that it is not only a moral right, but an imperative commandment, to allow women to make the choice for abortion or not; and that she engages in no sin regardless of her decision. Rather, the only sinners are those that try to interfere with her decision.

This isn't just the interpretation by progressive reform rabbis, either. Every major Jewish school of thought in the United States has put forth this sort of analysis. To limit the options of reproductive health for women is to infringe upon the rights of all Jewish women.

Don't like this argument; genuine religious believe isn't a license to do anything. If a religion included, say, ritual sacrifice of humans, adherents who did so would have no valid religious defense against prosecution.

I do absolutely disagree that abortion is murder, but even if one believed that to be the case it would still be incorrect to say that pro-choice people "want to murder babies." They want to let women control their own bodies, which, unfortunately, is in conflict with the survival of the fetus. If humans laid eggs, very few people who are pro choice would be pro-people-smashing-fertilized-eggs.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Don't like this argument; genuine religious believe isn't a license to do anything. If a religion included, say, ritual sacrifice of humans, adherents who did so would have no valid religious defense against prosecution.

I do absolutely disagree that abortion is murder, but even if one believed that to be the case it would still be incorrect to say that pro-choice people "want to murder babies." They want to let women control their own bodies, which, unfortunately, is in conflict with the survival of the fetus. If humans laid eggs, very few people who are pro choice would be pro-people-smashing-fertilized-eggs.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Don't like this argument; genuine religious believe isn't a license to do anything. If a religion included, say, ritual sacrifice of humans, adherents who did so would have no valid religious defense against prosecution.

I do absolutely disagree that abortion is murder, but even if one believed that to be the case it would still be incorrect to say that pro-choice people "want to murder babies." They want to let women control their own bodies, which, unfortunately, is in conflict with the survival of the fetus. If humans laid eggs, very few people who are pro choice would be pro-people-smashing-fertilized-eggs.

But you are just rephrasing it. I am not very strongly in belief on abortion, though I think it is fundamentally and morally wrong in most scenarios on a responsibility level.

---

I'm not rephrasing

Suppose X has negative side effect Y, and I am pro-allowing X. That does not make me pro-Y.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm not rephrasing

Suppose X has negative side effect Y, and I am pro-allowing X. That does not make me pro-Y.

Say X causes Y. You support people doing X purposely which causes Y but argue you are against Y.

---

I'm saying that Y is not so bad as to justify the benefit of allowing X.

As another example, the First Amendment allows hate speech. It's good that it does this, because if the government can ban offensive speech then it can ban political speech it disagrees with by claiming it's offensive (e.g. all of the recent examples with China). The fact that I'm pro-First Amendment doesn't mean that I'm pro-hate speech. Hate speech sucks. But it's a necessary consequence of the greater good of allowing free speech.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm saying that Y is not so bad as to justify the benefit of allowing X.

As another example, the First Amendment allows hate speech. It's good that it does this, because if the government can ban offensive speech then it can ban political speech it disagrees with by claiming it's offensive (e.g. all of the recent examples with China). The fact that I'm pro-First Amendment doesn't mean that I'm pro-hate speech. Hate speech sucks. But it's a necessary consequence of the greater good of allowing free speech.

I'm just saying that whether abortion is killing a baby is basically a matter of opinion of whether or not you feel a fetus has a soul or not. Idk the answer, but I definitely am not gonna tell someone with the opinion of it that they are wrong. You can say there isn't so it isn't and that's your opinion also, but I tend to agree that erring on the side of it being a possibility is a safer bet from a life perspective.

---

It's not an opinion on whether or not a fetus is a baby.

It is not. It's why we have two separate definitions for them:

Fetus: an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

Baby: an extremely young child

A fetus is not a baby. Democrats do not want to kill babies.
---

My point here is not really related to whether or not abortion is murder. I'm saying that wanting something to be allowed does not mean you "want" the negative side effects to happen. If we had the ability to teleport a fetus into an artificial womb for the remainder of the pregnancy, allowing the baby to be born, at the same cost as an abortion, I believe the vast majority of pro-choice people would be fine banning abortion as long as that hypothetical alternative was still legal and as widely available.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Don't like this argument; genuine religious believe isn't a license to do anything. If a religion included, say, ritual sacrifice of humans, adherents who did so would have no valid religious defense against prosecution.

No, it's a great argument. See
Peace___Frog posted...

But you're a hypocrite if you say it's ok for one group to push its religious agenda and not another.

(Then again I guess if conservatives cared about hypocrisy they'd have basically shamed themselves to death at this point, so...)

Corrik7 posted...

I'm just saying that whether abortion is killing a baby is basically a matter of opinion of whether or not you feel a fetus has a soul or not. Idk the answer, but I definitely am not gonna tell someone with the opinion of it that they are wrong. You can say there isn't so it isn't and that's your opinion also, but I tend to agree that erring on the side of it being a possibility is a safer bet from a life perspective.

Erring on the side of the possibility that it has A SOUL

A SOUL
---

Corrik7 posted...

I think it is fundamentally and morally wrong in most scenarios on a responsibility level.

This is the part people (rightfully) believe shows that conservatives care about abortion mostly to punish women
---

you are free to spout hate speech, i am free to admonish you for spewing hate speech.

it is how it should work.TheRock1525 posted...

A fetus is not a baby. Democrats do not want to kill babies.

Republicans indisputably want to kill babies.
---

https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1185350095912484864?s=21

Tulsi really seem to like going on Tuckers show

---

A human soul is what makes a human body a person. Corrik is exactly right.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik7 posted...

I think it is fundamentally and morally wrong in most scenarios on a responsibility level.

This is the part people (rightfully) believe shows that conservatives care about abortion mostly to punish women

And men. All must pay for their sins.
---

There should be a tax for pro life people that only they have to pay that specifically goes towards child support for women not allowed to get abortions.

It's only fair.

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1185350095912484864?s=21

Tulsi really seem to like going on Tuckers show

Tulsi apparently has a history of ducking out on commitments to appear on cable TV/in fluff pieces.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-gabbard-veterans-surfing_n_5948176
---

Dedue posted...

There should be a tax for pro life people that only they have to pay that specifically goes towards child support for women not allowed to get abortions.

It's only fair.

No, the tax should be levied on people when they have sex. The proceeds will go to reimburse the 1% for income tax they paid to contribute to welfare.
---

Do you guys remember when Hillary Clinton destroyed the country of Libya, a country where healthcare and housing and education were a human right, with a high standard of living, particular for the region, turning it into ruins and a haven for slavers and human trafficking because they literally did not even have a plan to stabilize the country after destroying it?

But at least she doesn't say stuff Russia agrees with

#votebluenomatterwho #stillwithher #slaykween

---

I don't remember that, actually.
---

Anybody that still outright supports Gabbard at this point is entirely the type of blind doofus she's trying to dupe
---

Looks like Canada has some real dumbasses too!

https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1185374418287157248?s=21

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Anybody that still outright supports Gabbard at this point is entirely the type of blind doofus she's trying to dupe

The Russian bots have been hard at work for this. They've been marginally successful.

Enough to get her a platform for her crazy.
---

Tulsi has like 1% support and more people like her who aren't Dems than who are because she is basically a paleoconservative. Her main proponent has been Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore, not Russian bots. You all seem completely deranged. Almost all regular people get their opinions from the mainstream media and mainstream news sources and Russian bots have minimal reach, and there is zero evidence to support that Russia is using bots to support Tulsi Gabbard, and if they are it isn't working. The biggest press she has gotten so far besides Joe Rogan is Hillary Clinton's accusations.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Looks like Canada has some real dumbasses too!

https://twitter.com/jordanuhl/status/1185374418287157248?s=21

bahahahahah holy shit that's uh wow
---

I guess protesting by acting out interfering in a criminal case for personal political gain was a bit too complicated
---

new page

---