It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.
They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.
could they breath on their own or even with help?
no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.
Wow, what a stupid argument.
My buddy's dad can't breathe on his own or even without help. He's hooked up to a machine. I guess that means he doesn't resemble a person/human?
At what point does life begin? Is it at birth... if so is it not alive 2 minutes before birth? Is it at some random point in the 0-9 month range? The only logical point is at conception. There are single celled organisms on this planet, are they not considered alive?
Bringing up responsibility is ironic, because if women took responsibility for their own actions, we wouldn't be having an abortion debate. Women already have the right to choose... to choose whether they engage in an activity that could lead to pregnancy, and the choice to take precautions. Over 99% of abortions are not rape related; about 5% are due to health reasons. Thus ~94% could be avoided if women took responsibilities for their actions. You have obviously never considered that if abortions were illegal that women would take more responsibility for their actions and the need for abortions would go way down. Balance that with the fact that sometimes abortions are necessary for medical reasons or rape, and I think we could have a moderate common sense approach to it.
Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.
They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.
could they breath on their own or even with help?
no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.
Wow, what a stupid argument.
My buddy's dad can't breathe on his own or even without help. He's hooked up to a machine. I guess that means he doesn't resemble a person/human?
At what point does life begin? Is it at birth... if so is it not alive 2 minutes before birth? Is it at some random point in the 0-9 month range? The only logical point is at conception. There are single celled organisms on this planet, are they not considered alive?
Its not a stupid argument. Boy you have a friendly tone in these parts. :roll:
Some people use the argument that the fetus (up until a point) is an organism that is still a part of the woman's body, as if its an extension of her that couldnt survive on its own, hence, its her choice. So unless your buddy's dad is growing off the nourishment and livelihood that another person is directly providing biologically, your analogy is, well, to use your words, "stupid."
Personally, I have a big problem with most abortions, but I think it should be the woman's decision what to do with what is growing inside of her.. But I can see many people's arguments, and I'd never just blurt out that they are stupid because they have a personal belief that life begins at a different point than the next guy.
The line between news and propaganda is slim there as it is but when you have an "analyst" openly admitting he slanted his election predictions because he believed that was his job, you have to cut ties. Even though slanting those election predictions was indeed his job.
Its not a stupid argument. Boy you have a friendly tone in these parts. :roll:
Some people use the argument that the fetus (up until a point) is an organism that is still a part of the woman's body, as if its an extension of her that couldnt survive on its own, hence, its her choice. So unless your buddy's dad is growing off the nourishment and livelihood that another person is directly providing biologically, your analogy is, well, to use your words, "stupid."
Personally, I have a big problem with most abortions, but I think it should be the woman's decision what to do with what is growing inside of her.. But I can see many people's arguments, and I'd never just blurt out that they are stupid because they have a personal belief that life begins at a different point than the next guy.
It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.
They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.
could they breath on their own or even with help?
no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.
Yes that's true, my grandpa was in an iron lung too, how he lived as long as he did.
It's all still life, just need some aid/care right?
Same with the very tiny newborns now being saved at 21 weeks, they wouldn't without proper
care. It's all life, yes?
It could certainly be argues that 50% of aborted fetuses are not women... or men- they are fetuses which are in a stage preceding movement or consciousness. Fetuses are aborted, not babies. The vast majority of abortions occur early enough in the pregnancy that the fetus does not even resemble a person.
They look like humans to me. The images I just saw online, 2, 3, 4 month old fetuses
look like people, they are people. I won't post one because it is sensitive and sad.
could they breath on their own or even with help?
no? oh yeah thats right , the lungs havent develpoed yet.
Theres a ton of people that would die without help.
Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.
I wasn't laying all responsibility on women, I was actually trying to empower them. Surely men can also choose to not engage in sex, or can choose to use protection. But I don't know how a guy can have sex without a girl who says "yes". So ultimately the decision is hers to have sex. So do you think the father should be able to have a say in the abortion too?
Contraception is already dirt cheap, and shouldn't be covered by insurance as it is not a NEED. If you've ever had kids, you'll realize that it can be quite difficult for people actually trying to get pregnant.
I'm not sure what further education is required, what teenager doesn't know where babies come from?
Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.
I wasn't laying all responsibility on women, I was actually trying to empower them. Surely men can also choose to not engage in sex, or can choose to use protection. But I don't know how a guy can have sex without a girl who says "yes". So ultimately the decision is hers to have sex. So do you think the father should be able to have a say in the abortion too?
Contraception is already dirt cheap, and shouldn't be covered by insurance as it is not a NEED. If you've ever had kids, you'll realize that it can be quite difficult for people actually trying to get pregnant.
I'm not sure what further education is required, what teenager doesn't know where babies come from?
and what of the other medically indicated diagnoses for this medication for something other than birth control? That should be covered , shouldnt it?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://youtu.be/Wjr-YWsP430
rush limbaugh on women voting
this fucking prick is a useless fat tub of crap. why can't he just vanish like tomorrow or something?
http://youtu.be/Wjr-YWsP430
rush limbaugh on women voting
this fucking prick is a useless fat tub of crap. why can't he just vanish like tomorrow or something?
But the regressives need a leader to tell them what to think and say and believe
Besides if Rush is gone who will we have to remind us how smart we are??
"In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out."
Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let’s just look at a little history here — because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets’ ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). “We all know how well that worked out,” said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our “war caucus” to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn’t understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant.
Second, it is a myth that the United States “armed bin Laden.” False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about “jihad.” It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by “radicals” in the name of Allah. Sure, there were religious aspects to the motivations of the mujaheddin, who of course considered the Soviets to be “infidels,” but to say that the primary goal was to expand the reach of the Prophet is so absurd as to be laughable. The Afghani defense against the Soviets was, in truth, as close to being a nationalist, patriotic war as the diverse tribes of Afghanistan are ever likely to be involved in.
So every element of Sen. Paul’s paragraph was wrong: 1) Reagan was not the head of a “war caucus.” 2) The U.S. did not arm bin Laden. 3) The U.S. support had nothing to do with “radical jihad.” 4) The Afghani/mujaheddin effort as a whole was only tangentially jihadist. And 5) The war in Afghanistan that kicked out the Soviets worked out not badly, but very, very well for the United States, for the Western world, and for the hundreds of millions of people freed from behind the Iron Curtain and for millions elsewhere whose “non-aligned states” were freed from fear of the Soviets and thus could move more towards free markets and towards Western prosperity.
Finally, as a post-script, most knowledgeable people would argue that it was only after the Soviets left that the radical jihadists like the Taliban and bin Laden really gained ascendance within Afghanistan — and it was not because the United States helped arm the mujaheddin, but because we left so soon afterwards without providing reconstruction aid. While nobody would suggest that the U.S. should have done anything approaching “nation building,” it is certainly arguable — and the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, as well as congressmen I know personally, indeed did and do argue this — that humanitarian aid, of not-terribly-expensive sorts, might have gone a long way towards bolstering the society in Afghanistan, and towards bolstering more responsible elements therein, in such a way that the Taliban might not have been able to find anywhere near as much opportunity to operate.
The lesson then would be not that Paul-like isolation is the best idea, but rather that just a little involvement might have then, and often does, helped ward off future disaster.
Rand Paul makes a lot of sense on many domestic issues. But by virtue of this one paragraph alone, his big “coming out” exam on foreign policy earned an unambiguous grade of ‘F.’
http://youtu.be/Wjr-YWsP430
rush limbaugh on women voting
this fucking prick is a useless fat tub of crap. why can't he just vanish like tomorrow or something?
But the regressives need a leader to tell them what to think and say and believe
Besides if Rush is gone who will we have to remind us how smart we are??
All my policies come from facts, common sense and faith! Its that simple.
I dont believe in emotions and feelings for policy....i believe in facts, common sense and reality!
all of your policies come from facts, common sense and FAITH? but you don't believe in emotions and feelings for policy? hmmmmmmm.......very republican of you.
also, I've heard that excuse made for republicans who claim the republican party is the party of civil rights. yeah, MLK and Abe Lincoln were both self-proclaimed republicans. (or at least Lincoln was) but clearly the republican party has evolved, no pun intended, into something completely different. the party of fox news claiming to be aligned with the teachings of MLK is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, if only I hadn't heard it before. even Colin Powell has essentially disbanded from the republican party, yet you still try and use him as your token black guy....herman caine? hahahaha.....I won't even capitalize his name....how someone could be proud of having that guy in their 'party' is beyond me. when you have to start naming off the handful of minorities who belong to your party as an example of why your party does not hate said minorities, that should be a red flag. if you had any common sense, it would be clear to you that todays GOP is the party of hate....even if some of their members aren't ready to openly admit their prejudices.
also, I've heard that excuse made for republicans who claim the republican party is the party of civil rights. yeah, MLK and Abe Lincoln were both self-proclaimed republicans. (or at least Lincoln was) but clearly the republican party has evolved, no pun intended, into something completely different. the party of fox news claiming to be aligned with the teachings of MLK is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, if only I hadn't heard it before. even Colin Powell has essentially disbanded from the republican party, yet you still try and use him as your token black guy....herman caine? hahahaha.....I won't even capitalize his name....how someone could be proud of having that guy in their 'party' is beyond me. when you have to start naming off the handful of minorities who belong to your party as an example of why your party does not hate said minorities, that should be a red flag. if you had any common sense, it would be clear to you that todays GOP is the party of hate....even if some of their members aren't ready to openly admit their prejudices.
Yet the Democrats are the party that want to enslave minorities to the government with entitlements in exchange for votes. It appears you have a warped view of reality.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My point was how can fetuses be considered human if they would be unable to breathe even with help? How would such an entity be kept alive without some lung function? Seriously. How?
My point has been that fetuses are life, they are human life, we all know this,
whether we are pro choice or pro life.
To continue to deny this fact is ridiculous and does nothing for the pro choice side of the issue.
It's a lame argument that is unnecessary.
Each and every human being who walks or ever walked the Earth was a fetus.
This is human life. Respect this.
Pro choice argument is just that, it's about the right to choose,
simply, either you believe in this or you don't. I do.
was your friends father born with fully developed lungs? I assume at some point he could breathe unaided ?Thats its now at this stage of life he needs assistance to breathe?
My point was how can fetuses be considered human if they would be unable to breathe even with help? How would such an entity be kept alive without some lung function? Seriously. How?
Without care 24/7, a 1 year old baby would die. Are they not human?
also, I've heard that excuse made for republicans who claim the republican party is the party of civil rights. yeah, MLK and Abe Lincoln were both self-proclaimed republicans. (or at least Lincoln was) but clearly the republican party has evolved, no pun intended, into something completely different. the party of fox news claiming to be aligned with the teachings of MLK is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, if only I hadn't heard it before. even Colin Powell has essentially disbanded from the republican party, yet you still try and use him as your token black guy....herman caine? hahahaha.....I won't even capitalize his name....how someone could be proud of having that guy in their 'party' is beyond me. when you have to start naming off the handful of minorities who belong to your party as an example of why your party does not hate said minorities, that should be a red flag. if you had any common sense, it would be clear to you that todays GOP is the party of hate....even if some of their members aren't ready to openly admit their prejudices.
Yet the Democrats are the party that want to enslave minorities to the government with entitlements in exchange for votes. It appears you have a warped view of reality.
please elaborate on this accusation.
as for my warped view of reality....i'd say it's not. merely an observation of the reality I am living in. there is not one strong-standing/passionate republican that I've ever met who I would not consider a bigot. the only republicans I know who I would not consider bigoted are people who choose political sides based on the affiliations of those closest to them, and not a knowledge of actual political policy. (the misinformed) for example, my non-political mother who refuses to support Obama, not based on his performance as president, or his personality, or even his ideology; but because my stepfather is a racist in denial who has fox news playing on the tv 24/7. you know, the news network that spends 90% of their airtime portraying the president of the united states as an illegitimate commie/socialist (if only he were a commie/socialist) who is trying to derail this great country and everything it has ever stood for.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in my world, there are two types of people that support todays republican party.
#1. those who are filled with hate, and/or are overly susceptible to fear mongering.
#2. those who are severely misinformed...most likely due to selective exposure of information, a low intellectual capacity or religious brainwashing.
tide goes in, tide goes out, sun goes up, sun goes down; never a miscommunication - paraphrasing conservative idiot Bill O'Reilly's breakthrough on what he claims is proof that God exists.
also, I've heard that excuse made for republicans who claim the republican party is the party of civil rights. yeah, MLK and Abe Lincoln were both self-proclaimed republicans. (or at least Lincoln was) but clearly the republican party has evolved, no pun intended, into something completely different. the party of fox news claiming to be aligned with the teachings of MLK is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, if only I hadn't heard it before. even Colin Powell has essentially disbanded from the republican party, yet you still try and use him as your token black guy....herman caine? hahahaha.....I won't even capitalize his name....how someone could be proud of having that guy in their 'party' is beyond me. when you have to start naming off the handful of minorities who belong to your party as an example of why your party does not hate said minorities, that should be a red flag. if you had any common sense, it would be clear to you that todays GOP is the party of hate....even if some of their members aren't ready to openly admit their prejudices.
Yet the Democrats are the party that want to enslave minorities to the government with entitlements in exchange for votes. It appears you have a warped view of reality.
please elaborate on this accusation.
as for my warped view of reality....i'd say it's not. merely an observation of the reality I am living in. there is not one strong-standing/passionate republican that I've ever met who I would not consider a bigot. the only republicans I know who I would not consider bigoted are people who choose political sides based on the affiliations of those closest to them, and not a knowledge of actual political policy. (the misinformed) for example, my non-political mother who refuses to support Obama, not based on his performance as president, or his personality, or even his ideology; but because my stepfather is a racist in denial who has fox news playing on the tv 24/7. you know, the news network that spends 90% of their airtime portraying the president of the united states as an illegitimate commie/socialist (if only he were a commie/socialist) who is trying to derail this great country and everything it has ever stood for.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in my world, there are two types of people that support todays republican party.
#1. those who are filled with hate, and/or are overly susceptible to fear mongering.
#2. those who are severely misinformed...most likely due to selective exposure of information, a low intellectual capacity or religious brainwashing.
What a coincidence! Because in my experience, those are the two types of people who support todays Democratic Party.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in my world, there are two types of people that support todays republican party.
#1. those who are filled with hate, and/or are overly susceptible to fear mongering.
#2. those who are severely misinformed...most likely due to selective exposure of information, a low intellectual capacity or religious brainwashing.
Oh shit this is priceless. Of course no one could disagree with your opinions or "your side" unless there was something seriously wrong with them huh?
Comments
Wow, what a stupid argument.
My buddy's dad can't breathe on his own or even without help. He's hooked up to a machine. I guess that means he doesn't resemble a person/human?
At what point does life begin? Is it at birth... if so is it not alive 2 minutes before birth? Is it at some random point in the 0-9 month range? The only logical point is at conception. There are single celled organisms on this planet, are they not considered alive?
Way to lay all the responsibility on the woman, as if there is only one person involved. :roll: Last I knew, there are two, and I never hear about forced castration. And here, there are states and politicians that condemn the woman in a rape if she wants to get an abortion.... Not to mention, many woman WOULD choose, if contraception was affordable and covered by insurance, something republicans are against. That said, it is an issue that concerns BOTH partners, hence the need for sex education and availability of contraception.
Its not a stupid argument. Boy you have a friendly tone in these parts. :roll:
Some people use the argument that the fetus (up until a point) is an organism that is still a part of the woman's body, as if its an extension of her that couldnt survive on its own, hence, its her choice. So unless your buddy's dad is growing off the nourishment and livelihood that another person is directly providing biologically, your analogy is, well, to use your words, "stupid."
Personally, I have a big problem with most abortions, but I think it should be the woman's decision what to do with what is growing inside of her.. But I can see many people's arguments, and I'd never just blurt out that they are stupid because they have a personal belief that life begins at a different point than the next guy.
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/2013/02/ ... story.html
The line between news and propaganda is slim there as it is but when you have an "analyst" openly admitting he slanted his election predictions because he believed that was his job, you have to cut ties. Even though slanting those election predictions was indeed his job.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Well said.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
It's all still life, just need some aid/care right?
Same with the very tiny newborns now being saved at 21 weeks, they wouldn't without proper
care. It's all life, yes?
Theres a ton of people that would die without help.
I wasn't laying all responsibility on women, I was actually trying to empower them. Surely men can also choose to not engage in sex, or can choose to use protection. But I don't know how a guy can have sex without a girl who says "yes". So ultimately the decision is hers to have sex. So do you think the father should be able to have a say in the abortion too?
Contraception is already dirt cheap, and shouldn't be covered by insurance as it is not a NEED. If you've ever had kids, you'll realize that it can be quite difficult for people actually trying to get pregnant.
I'm not sure what further education is required, what teenager doesn't know where babies come from?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
rush limbaugh on women voting
this fucking prick is a useless fat tub of crap. why can't he just vanish like tomorrow or something?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
But the regressives need a leader to tell them what to think and say and believe
Besides if Rush is gone who will we have to remind us how smart we are??
http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/171 ... paragraph/
Here’s the passage at issue:
"In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out."
Let’s leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase “war caucus” to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president.
Instead, let’s just look at a little history here — because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets’ ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). “We all know how well that worked out,” said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our “war caucus” to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn’t understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant.
Second, it is a myth that the United States “armed bin Laden.” False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about “jihad.” It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by “radicals” in the name of Allah. Sure, there were religious aspects to the motivations of the mujaheddin, who of course considered the Soviets to be “infidels,” but to say that the primary goal was to expand the reach of the Prophet is so absurd as to be laughable. The Afghani defense against the Soviets was, in truth, as close to being a nationalist, patriotic war as the diverse tribes of Afghanistan are ever likely to be involved in.
So every element of Sen. Paul’s paragraph was wrong: 1) Reagan was not the head of a “war caucus.” 2) The U.S. did not arm bin Laden. 3) The U.S. support had nothing to do with “radical jihad.” 4) The Afghani/mujaheddin effort as a whole was only tangentially jihadist. And 5) The war in Afghanistan that kicked out the Soviets worked out not badly, but very, very well for the United States, for the Western world, and for the hundreds of millions of people freed from behind the Iron Curtain and for millions elsewhere whose “non-aligned states” were freed from fear of the Soviets and thus could move more towards free markets and towards Western prosperity.
Finally, as a post-script, most knowledgeable people would argue that it was only after the Soviets left that the radical jihadists like the Taliban and bin Laden really gained ascendance within Afghanistan — and it was not because the United States helped arm the mujaheddin, but because we left so soon afterwards without providing reconstruction aid. While nobody would suggest that the U.S. should have done anything approaching “nation building,” it is certainly arguable — and the movie Charlie Wilson’s War, as well as congressmen I know personally, indeed did and do argue this — that humanitarian aid, of not-terribly-expensive sorts, might have gone a long way towards bolstering the society in Afghanistan, and towards bolstering more responsible elements therein, in such a way that the Taliban might not have been able to find anywhere near as much opportunity to operate.
The lesson then would be not that Paul-like isolation is the best idea, but rather that just a little involvement might have then, and often does, helped ward off future disaster.
Rand Paul makes a lot of sense on many domestic issues. But by virtue of this one paragraph alone, his big “coming out” exam on foreign policy earned an unambiguous grade of ‘F.’
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
and here is mr. insanity limbaugh talking out of his large sweaty pimply ass
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Only this time Rushie is called out by an ex-marine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJ5nn2-2oo
all of your policies come from facts, common sense and FAITH? but you don't believe in emotions and feelings for policy? hmmmmmmm.......very republican of you.
also, I've heard that excuse made for republicans who claim the republican party is the party of civil rights. yeah, MLK and Abe Lincoln were both self-proclaimed republicans. (or at least Lincoln was) but clearly the republican party has evolved, no pun intended, into something completely different. the party of fox news claiming to be aligned with the teachings of MLK is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard, if only I hadn't heard it before. even Colin Powell has essentially disbanded from the republican party, yet you still try and use him as your token black guy....herman caine? hahahaha.....I won't even capitalize his name....how someone could be proud of having that guy in their 'party' is beyond me. when you have to start naming off the handful of minorities who belong to your party as an example of why your party does not hate said minorities, that should be a red flag. if you had any common sense, it would be clear to you that todays GOP is the party of hate....even if some of their members aren't ready to openly admit their prejudices.
Yet the Democrats are the party that want to enslave minorities to the government with entitlements in exchange for votes. It appears you have a warped view of reality.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
whether we are pro choice or pro life.
To continue to deny this fact is ridiculous and does nothing for the pro choice side of the issue.
It's a lame argument that is unnecessary.
Each and every human being who walks or ever walked the Earth was a fetus.
This is human life. Respect this.
Pro choice argument is just that, it's about the right to choose,
simply, either you believe in this or you don't. I do.
Without care 24/7, a 1 year old baby would die. Are they not human?
At what point does life begin?
please elaborate on this accusation.
as for my warped view of reality....i'd say it's not. merely an observation of the reality I am living in. there is not one strong-standing/passionate republican that I've ever met who I would not consider a bigot. the only republicans I know who I would not consider bigoted are people who choose political sides based on the affiliations of those closest to them, and not a knowledge of actual political policy. (the misinformed) for example, my non-political mother who refuses to support Obama, not based on his performance as president, or his personality, or even his ideology; but because my stepfather is a racist in denial who has fox news playing on the tv 24/7. you know, the news network that spends 90% of their airtime portraying the president of the united states as an illegitimate commie/socialist (if only he were a commie/socialist) who is trying to derail this great country and everything it has ever stood for.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that, in my world, there are two types of people that support todays republican party.
#1. those who are filled with hate, and/or are overly susceptible to fear mongering.
#2. those who are severely misinformed...most likely due to selective exposure of information, a low intellectual capacity or religious brainwashing.
tide goes in, tide goes out, sun goes up, sun goes down; never a miscommunication - paraphrasing conservative idiot Bill O'Reilly's breakthrough on what he claims is proof that God exists.
What a coincidence! Because in my experience, those are the two types of people who support todays Democratic Party.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I enjoyed cracking a few beers and watching b-ball with him this past weekend. Life is good.
Oh shit this is priceless. Of course no one could disagree with your opinions or "your side" unless there was something seriously wrong with them huh?
Get your bs out of here.
How did you open your beer with him in your hand? :shock:
"...I changed by not changing at all..."