Gaddafi captured (killed) ???
- Thread starter Pittsey
- Start date
Fuck Ron Paul. He's disingenuous as fuck.
Don't be fooled by the radical (by Republican standards) ideas or the Texas charm. He's another George Bush. Everyone was fooled by George Bush in that original win. Hell, even the second term win he was still winning people over, even with the cheating scandal and the wars.
He's definitely smarter than his Republican peers, but he's still rotten to the core. He wants the US to be out of the United Nations. He wants the US to not interfere with as he put it, "our close friend Israel", and he's anti-abortion. The fool actually believes that life begins at conception, that's fucking crazy talk. You'd have to be an idiot to be anti-abortion in this day and age. Women can do whatever the fuck they want with their body, whatever the situation as far as I'm concerned and the idea of "life" beginning at conception is utterly stupid. A fucking zygote is not life. The guy OPPOSED THE FREAKING CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 for fucks sake, and said it did nothing to improve race relations. Find me a single African-American who lived through that era that agrees with that and I'll give you a medal.
And in case you forgot what the civil rights act was....
People are supporting Ron Paul mainly because he was the only Republican who opposed the recent wars, he's economically sound and we're in a depression. That's not good enough IMO. People are scared due to the financial and war situations and that's understandable, but it's not a good enough reason to vote for someone that believes in so much utter nonsense otherwise.
In short, fuck Ron Paul. GOBAMA 2012!
Don't be fooled by the radical (by Republican standards) ideas or the Texas charm. He's another George Bush. Everyone was fooled by George Bush in that original win. Hell, even the second term win he was still winning people over, even with the cheating scandal and the wars.
He's definitely smarter than his Republican peers, but he's still rotten to the core. He wants the US to be out of the United Nations. He wants the US to not interfere with as he put it, "our close friend Israel", and he's anti-abortion. The fool actually believes that life begins at conception, that's fucking crazy talk. You'd have to be an idiot to be anti-abortion in this day and age. Women can do whatever the fuck they want with their body, whatever the situation as far as I'm concerned and the idea of "life" beginning at conception is utterly stupid. A fucking zygote is not life. The guy OPPOSED THE FREAKING CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 for fucks sake, and said it did nothing to improve race relations. Find me a single African-American who lived through that era that agrees with that and I'll give you a medal.
And in case you forgot what the civil rights act was....
People are supporting Ron Paul mainly because he was the only Republican who opposed the recent wars, he's economically sound and we're in a depression. That's not good enough IMO. People are scared due to the financial and war situations and that's understandable, but it's not a good enough reason to vote for someone that believes in so much utter nonsense otherwise.
In short, fuck Ron Paul. GOBAMA 2012!
I'm not political so there's no stepping on my toes, but a lot of support for Paul has been for legalization of marijuana. That's just what it seems like on the internet.
I have an issue with abortion, and one only. I feel some irresponsible people will abuse abortion and use it as a means of birth control. Birth control in the sense that people will fuck around left and right, and if something goes wrong, just get an abortion. Yes, a zygote isn't a living person, but I still feel that tossing zygotes out like trash, whether you consider it trash or not, is a bit wrong. I feel there's a moral issue there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems almost intangible.
So rape cases and "oops" cases, fine. But there's a woman having several of them in her lifespan, I feel that she and her partner(s) are just not being responsible adults. Why should we condone or allow that?
And then you get into the whole "what role does the father have in saying yes or no?" and it's a huge can of worms that's been opened. Because there are inequalities in that aspect as well.
I have an issue with abortion, and one only. I feel some irresponsible people will abuse abortion and use it as a means of birth control. Birth control in the sense that people will fuck around left and right, and if something goes wrong, just get an abortion. Yes, a zygote isn't a living person, but I still feel that tossing zygotes out like trash, whether you consider it trash or not, is a bit wrong. I feel there's a moral issue there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems almost intangible.
So rape cases and "oops" cases, fine. But there's a woman having several of them in her lifespan, I feel that she and her partner(s) are just not being responsible adults. Why should we condone or allow that?
And then you get into the whole "what role does the father have in saying yes or no?" and it's a huge can of worms that's been opened. Because there are inequalities in that aspect as well.
I guarantee that there would be no legalisation of marijuana under a Republican leadership. He'll say what he needs to say to get votes right now.
I agree with the idea of abortion as birth control is wrong, but that's not how the situation tends to work. No sane woman would act like that because of the invasive nature of an abortion, the trauma of it, and the potential of it damaging your future ability to have children. For the vast majority of women, abortion IS a last resort. We don't have to CONDONE it, but to say "why should we allow it" reeks of fascism. It's not "our" situation to "allow" - the point is that it's up to the woman.
Yes, in that extreme situation you described it would be irresponsible. People act irresponsibly all the time. We legislate that irresponsibility on the basis of the potential damage to other living, breathing, sentient, self-aware beings. A zygote doesn't fit into that category for obvious reasons.
And as far as what role does the father have, he doesn't have to carry the child in his body and give birth to it. If a woman aborted my child, fine. It's her decision and even if it's not what I wanted, it's still her decision because I don't have to physically do anything and it's not MY body. The same way that even if I wanted a vasectomy, it's my choice and if my partner disagreed, too bad. We could have a open minded mature debate about it, but it's still my body and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I know it's not fully an accurate comparison, but it's close enough.
I agree with the idea of abortion as birth control is wrong, but that's not how the situation tends to work. No sane woman would act like that because of the invasive nature of an abortion, the trauma of it, and the potential of it damaging your future ability to have children. For the vast majority of women, abortion IS a last resort. We don't have to CONDONE it, but to say "why should we allow it" reeks of fascism. It's not "our" situation to "allow" - the point is that it's up to the woman.
Yes, in that extreme situation you described it would be irresponsible. People act irresponsibly all the time. We legislate that irresponsibility on the basis of the potential damage to other living, breathing, sentient, self-aware beings. A zygote doesn't fit into that category for obvious reasons.
And as far as what role does the father have, he doesn't have to carry the child in his body and give birth to it. If a woman aborted my child, fine. It's her decision and even if it's not what I wanted, it's still her decision because I don't have to physically do anything and it's not MY body. The same way that even if I wanted a vasectomy, it's my choice and if my partner disagreed, too bad. We could have a open minded mature debate about it, but it's still my body and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. I know it's not fully an accurate comparison, but it's close enough.
I see the analogy. It makes sense.
But what about this?
Woman wants baby. Man doesn't. Man pays child support. Good. It takes two to tango.
Woman doesn't want baby. Man does. Woman aborts. Ok. It's her body.
Disparity exists because one has a vagina and the other doesn't. It's nature, I know. But it still seems a bit unfair. The "it takes two to tango" argument doesn't work there."
But what about this?
Woman wants baby. Man doesn't. Man pays child support. Good. It takes two to tango.
Woman doesn't want baby. Man does. Woman aborts. Ok. It's her body.
Disparity exists because one has a vagina and the other doesn't. It's nature, I know. But it still seems a bit unfair. The "it takes two to tango" argument doesn't work there."
I understand what you're saying. But paying child support for a kid you didn't want is still a better situation than having an abortion which could damage your body, your ability to have future children, and even kill you. And that aside, I would say that all women who have an abortion probably find it to be quite a traumatic experience, to varying degrees, whereas you'd have to be incredibly miserly and selfish to be "traumatised" by having to pay money to support the raising of your child, wanted or not.
If you don't want children, you act in a responsible manner in the element that you have control over - ie, using protection.
Yeah, I just worry about the people that will abuse it. You would think there was a very small portion of the general population that had some shame and wouldn't abuse the system. But I can't help but feel we'll have a few women in dangerous situations if they didn't have abortions and more poor, ignorant women there using it as a means of birth control. Why wear a condom when your partner doesn't mind an abortion?
I've never known someone to get an abortion. I'm not familiar with the process either. I've heard it is painful, but that may not be enough to stop some people. Piercing your clit or dick or nipple must be painful. People still do it. Different, but same concept of using pain to deter someone from doing it.
Ron Paul is many things but I don't think he's disingenuous. Contrary to most politicians, he's not known as a flip flopper on issues. I think he's a sincere libertarian. I disagree with most of his ideas, though. I agree on legalizing drugs. But I wouldn't vote for him since I disagree with almost every other stance. He's not rotten to the core. He just has polarizing views. I also don't think he'd say anything to win an election because he's actually unelectable due to what he's saying.
As far as opposing The Civil Rights Act, I think it's veiled racism. After all, he's and old white man from Texas. Racism is pretty much in his biological make up. But the reason he opposes it is because he doesn't believe in that level of government control over private property.
As far as legalization of marijuana, it seems like this new breed of Republicans isn't really against it. The interesting thing is that they believe in legalization of marijuana for different reasons than liberals. Liberals approach it with this idea that it's not bad for you and bla bla while a lot of Republicans with libertarian views believe it should be legal because government shouldn't decide on those matters for you while the Democrats are always uptight about "societal implications" and safety and all that "our kids will become heroin addicts" nonsense.
As far as opposing The Civil Rights Act, I think it's veiled racism. After all, he's and old white man from Texas. Racism is pretty much in his biological make up. But the reason he opposes it is because he doesn't believe in that level of government control over private property.
As far as legalization of marijuana, it seems like this new breed of Republicans isn't really against it. The interesting thing is that they believe in legalization of marijuana for different reasons than liberals. Liberals approach it with this idea that it's not bad for you and bla bla while a lot of Republicans with libertarian views believe it should be legal because government shouldn't decide on those matters for you while the Democrats are always uptight about "societal implications" and safety and all that "our kids will become heroin addicts" nonsense.
Then I have polarizing views as well. I haven't used drugs, so I shouldn't be commenting on them, right? Same thing with abortion. I might look like Bonnie from Family Guy, but I can't have kids. I can't comment on that either. Isn't that the rule? "Don't knock it til you try it?" I don't think some drugs should be legalized, like marijuana. Well, it should be, but strictly for medicinal use. And people bullshit prescriptions these days, so there goes that. But at the same time, I don't want to prevent someone from enjoying them. But I do have that fear that it will get out of hand and it will affect certain members of society negatively. But that's another story.
The internet seems to love Ron Paul. But then again, they also like captioning cat pictures.
What a surprise...
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu (L) is understood to be calling for military action against Iran
1:15pm UK, Wednesday November 02, 2011
Emma Hurd, Middle East correspondent
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to rally support in his cabinet for an attack on Iran, according to government sources.
The country's defence minister Ehud Barak and the foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman are said to be among those backing a pre-emptive strike to neutralise Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But a narrow majority of ministers currently oppose the move, which could trigger a wave of regional retaliation.
The debate over possible Israeli military action has reached fever pitch in recent days with newspaper leader columns discussing the benefits and dangers of hitting Iran.
Mr Lieberman responded to the reports of a push to gain cabinet approval by saying that "Iran poses the most dangerous threat to world order."
But he said Israel's military options should not be a matter for public discussion.
The reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant where Iran has began to unload fuel for the nuclear power plant
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due to report on the state of Iran’s nuclear capabilities on November 8, and that assessment is likely to influence Israel’s decision.
Western intelligence officials estimate that Iran is still at least two to three years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Israel has long made it clear that it will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear capability that could threaten the Jewish State.
Publicly it is pushing for a diplomatic offensive against Iran - including the imposition of sanctions - rather than a military strike.
But prime minister Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that all options are on the table.
Israel's former defence minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Haraatez newspaper that he feared a "horror scenario" if Israel attacked Iran.
Washington is also strongly opposed to Israel taking unilateral action.
Any strike on Iran could trigger retaliation from Iran and across the region.
Syria, a close ally of Tehran, could also launch attacks, along with the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in Lebanon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15643460
This is how it starts. America sewing the seeds into our minds so they can justify an attack on Iran. It all started with the "attempt" on the life of the US ambassador.
UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons'
The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".
In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.
Correspondents say this is the International Atomic Energy Agency's toughest report on Iran to date.
Iran says its nuclear programme is solely to generate civilian power.
The BBC's Bethany Bell, in Geneva, has examined the IAEA's latest quarterly report on Iran's nuclear programme.
She says the report gives detailed information - some new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.
The report notes that some of this research, conducted in 2008-09, is of "particular concern", our correspondent says.
"The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency," the report says.
Ahead of the report's release, there had been speculation in Israeli media about potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Russia said the IAEA report has caused rising tension and said more time was needed to determine whether it contained new, reliable evidence of a military element to Iran's nuclear programme.
This is how it starts. America sewing the seeds into our minds so they can justify an attack on Iran. It all started with the "attempt" on the life of the US ambassador.
UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons'
Russia helped Iran build its Bushehr nuclear power plant
The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".
In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.
Correspondents say this is the International Atomic Energy Agency's toughest report on Iran to date.
Iran says its nuclear programme is solely to generate civilian power.
The BBC's Bethany Bell, in Geneva, has examined the IAEA's latest quarterly report on Iran's nuclear programme.
She says the report gives detailed information - some new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.
The report notes that some of this research, conducted in 2008-09, is of "particular concern", our correspondent says.
"The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency," the report says.
Ahead of the report's release, there had been speculation in Israeli media about potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Russia said the IAEA report has caused rising tension and said more time was needed to determine whether it contained new, reliable evidence of a military element to Iran's nuclear programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15643460
This is how it starts. America sewing the seeds into our minds so they can justify an attack on Iran. It all started with the "attempt" on the life of the US ambassador.
UN nuclear agency IAEA: Iran 'studying nuclear weapons'
Russia helped Iran build its Bushehr nuclear power plant
The UN's nuclear watchdog says it has information indicating Iran has carried out tests "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".
In its latest report on Iran, the IAEA says the research includes computer models that could only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger.
Correspondents say this is the International Atomic Energy Agency's toughest report on Iran to date.
Iran says its nuclear programme is solely to generate civilian power.
The BBC's Bethany Bell, in Geneva, has examined the IAEA's latest quarterly report on Iran's nuclear programme.
She says the report gives detailed information - some new - suggesting that Iran conducted computer modelling of a kind that would only be relevant to a nuclear weapon.
The report notes that some of this research, conducted in 2008-09, is of "particular concern", our correspondent says.
"The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency," the report says.
Ahead of the report's release, there had been speculation in Israeli media about potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Russia said the IAEA report has caused rising tension and said more time was needed to determine whether it contained new, reliable evidence of a military element to Iran's nuclear programme.
Do you think the IAEA report is false? Do you believe Iran isn't trying to build nuclear weapons?
No... Do you think Iran would launch their Nukes (if they have them) and start a nuclear war? Which countries should be allowed Nuclear weapons?
But I believe a lot of anti-Iran propaganda is building. It's on the list along with Syria, Libya, Iraq, Egypt. There is a land grab going on. American has a twisted agenda in the middle east. It is too pro-Israeli. And the UN basically = The USA.
Donate
Back in the day, we used to recieve donations sent as cash in fake birthday cards! Those were the days! I still have some of them, actually.
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8
Now we have crypto.
Ethereum/EVM: 0x9c70214f34ea949095308dca827380295b201e80
Bitcoin: bc1qa5twnqsqm8jxrcxm2z9w6gts7syha8gasqacww
Solana: 8xePHrFwsduS7xU4XNjp2FRArTD7RFzmCQsjBaetE2y8