Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/04/planned-parenthood-president-cecile-richards-jared-kushner-and-ivanka-trump-offered-a-bribe-to-stop-abortions.html

I'm completely fine with that tbh.

You're fine with corruption if it helps your interests?

Abortions - Don't bash em till you try em.

Someone should just abort Jared and Ivanka at this point.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You're fine with corruption if it helps your interests?
It doesn't strike me as particularly corrupt to say that an institution will get more taxpayer funding if it stops doing something half of the taxpayers find deeply immoral.

From the standpoint of someone who thinks some of their services are good, but abortion is problematic and even if legal should in no way be publically subsidized, there's nothing wrong with the arrangement that PP gets more money if they stop performing abortions.

Isn't it already illegal to use federal money to fund abortions?

I don't buy that it's that simple in reality. If your other services are being publically subsidized then it seems the logical conclusion that there would be more non-taxpayer money freed up to pay for abortion.

Actually on second thought, they shouldn't get taxpayer money either way if they have millions of dollars to spare to spend donating to Democratic candidates.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't buy that it's that simple in reality.

It's not unheard for for companies to have practices like "restricted funds", where 'x' amount of money or given donation can only be used in certain ways.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm completely fine with that tbh.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You're fine with corruption if it helps your interests?


I'm okay with it, too. I'm more than happy to stop what I believe is the murder of babies with as much money, corruptly, as possible. Throw as much money as possible at it and if it is money being thrown at the situation, illegally, who cares!



Surely there are better options than bribes, however?



I'd rather start at UHC and UBI solutions, first. And the UHC option needs to include contraceptives for free.


But, yes, throw money at preventing abortions, please. More corruption as much as possible.




What, this is not the answer you expected? You thought people would be too much of a coward to admit to your strawman question? Not so, I've been very consistent about my anti-abortion stance. Abortion is wrong. Abortion is murder. But I want abortion legal and covered for free.


Originally posted by Emperordmb
It doesn't strike me as particularly corrupt to say that an institution will get more taxpayer funding if it stops doing something half of the taxpayers find deeply immoral.

Which is why his question is a strawman and he knows it.

Unfortunately, the reality of abortions is not as cut and dry. While the laws in America are different, some things remain the same. If we remove the legal support ofr abortions, then the bad old days of the 60s 70s and 80s will re-emerge with a vengeance. Streetside abortions with coathangers will start happening once more, and many of those were with no consent or any kind of medical aide.

IIRC, this sometimes resulted in babies surviving this, and being born horribly disfigured and damaged to the point of disability.

Thats an extreme situation, but one that has haunted me, because I was a child of the 80s, and I remember some things I see...

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Unfortunately, the reality of abortions is not as cut and dry. While the laws in America are different, some things remain the same. If we remove the legal support ofr abortions, then the bad old days of the 60s 70s and 80s will re-emerge with a vengeance. Streetside abortions with coathangers will start happening once more, and many of those were with no consent or any kind of medical aide.

IIRC, this sometimes resulted in babies surviving this, and being born horribly disfigured and damaged to the point of disability.

Thats an extreme situation, but one that has haunted me, because I was a child of the 80s, and I remember some things I see...
And that is not a good thing to occur, but I think it's a preferable option if it reduces the number of abortions taking place, which it would logically do.

It sucks that some people will self-inflict harm on themselves, but I don't think it's as much the government's responsibility to protect people from harming themselves the same way it's the government's responsibility to keep people from harming other people.

Amazon should make abortions included in their prime membership. Everyone wins.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And that is not a good thing to occur, but I think it's a preferable option if it reduces the number of abortions taking place, which it would logically do.

It sucks that some people will self-inflict harm on themselves, but I don't think it's as much the government's responsibility to protect people from harming themselves the same way it's the government's responsibility to keep people from harming other people.

So your idea is to turn a safe procedure that will keep people alive, and turn it into an unsafe cottage industry where backyard hackjobs will charge extortionistic prices in unsafe malpractice surgeries? Shit, may as well open up black market organ harvesting. Sorry Emp, but there is more dire consequences for doing this kind of action. This is going to get a lot of people killed, and a lot of bad actors are going to profit.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
So your idea is to turn a safe procedure that will keep people alive, and turn it into an unsafe cottage industry where backyard hackjobs will charge extortionistic prices in unsafe malpractice surgeries? Shit, may as well open up black market organ harvesting. Sorry Emp, but there is more dire consequences for doing this kind of action. This is going to get a lot of people killed, and a lot of bad actors are going to profit.
Sorry Zero, but the way any pro-life person views it is that our current policy gets a lot of people killed in a government sanctioned way.

You know, the best part of seeing abortion arguments rehashed for the third dozen time on this website is that it never fails to remind me of one of my favorite George Carlin quotes -

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Sorry Zero, but the way any pro-life person views it is that our current policy gets a lot of people killed in a government sanctioned way.

yeah, because breeding the next generation, no matter the condition, is preferable to making sure that the babies are safe and healthy. Of course.

Originally posted by BackFire
You know, the best part of seeing abortion arguments rehashed for the third dozen time on this website is that it never fails to remind me of one of my favorite George Carlin quotes -

That's a very disingenuous, cynical, generalized, antiquated and shallow view of what the "pro-life" argument is. As well as a weak argument on the humanity (or lack thereof) of fetuses that anyone who gives it a little thought could probably debunk easily.

Essentially, this argument is a joke (w/c is basically his job, seeing as he's a comedian).

1) Not all "prof-lifers" are conservatives. Not all are pro-military spending. Many would be happy providing social services to abandoned children in lieu of increased military spending, it just so happens that the only political party that supports pro-life is the conservative one.

2) See above on military. And we don't want women to be "brood mares" we just want you to take responsibility for your own actions and not murder a little innocent unborn child just so you can escape it.

3) Why should white women take responsibility for "black fetuses"? Why should they be made to adopt children they don't want to? Yes, Catholicism teaches us to be charitable, but we are given freedom of choice on the how. Why aren't the actual parents (yknow, the one who made the choice to concieve them?) of these children y'know the ones made to actually take responsibility for their own actions?

If the gov would ban abortion as form of contraception (not medically necessary abortion, I'm sure a good chunk of pro-lifers are not against that) or at least cut funding on institutions that provide it as a service while either cutting military spending or increasing taxes to improve social services, I can personally see a lot of pro-lifers being able to get behind that.

4) This is just stupid. Conservatives aren't the only ones who eat meat.

5) A period/ejaculate is not conception. A lot of pro-lifers are against the death penalty. Again, disingenuous.

6) The homosexual debate is another thing entirely. And yes, there are pedo's in the world. And many enter priesthood and use this opportunity to do their sick shit. But come on, that's pretty damn disingenuous don't you think? Not every person has good intentions regardless of being a priest or not.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
yeah, because breeding the next generation, no matter the condition, is preferable to making sure that the babies are safe and healthy. Of course.

That's not what he said.

Also, I have no issue on PP being de-incentivized (via gov funding) so that they would abandon abortion.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You're fine with corruption if it helps your interests?

How much did your parents take to Not Abort You Nephy?

Neph triggers the idiots again! Kudos Neph!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
How much did your parents take to Not Abort You Nephy?

As my post above. You too FA.

Sorry, I triggered you too Nibedicus.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Sorry, I triggered you too Nibedicus.

Sigh. Guess some people can't let go of their basic M.O.

Meh. Hate to do it as you do make decent debates sometimes. But /ignore.

Anyway, hope no one falls for the baits and we can all continue this debate.

Eager to actually discuss the abortion debate again to see where we all stand (if possible).

Originally posted by Nephthys
You're fine with corruption if it helps your interests?

I'm sure the benevolent Democrats will sweep in and take away the nefarious Republicans, make it a safe place again.

While I do think the amount of abortions in the US is alarming, exactly how does eliminating a means of having a legal or safe one boasts better results? Wouldn't it be better to promote a means of living where the need of abortion is less likely?

As for the bribe thing, exactly what good does this actually do in the long term if it actually went through? If there are concerns about using federal funds for Planned Parenthood, then maybe we can find methods where citizens can set up a payment plan. Or alternatively look at exactly how much of citizens taxes are used as federal and device a budget that would solve such a tax burden.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
As my post above. You too FA.

At least twice as much.

Yes. Life is Sacred. Not a By Product of Casual Carelessness.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.

What a perverse way to spin an argument. I woulda thought his message was about ownership and responsibilities of choices made, not your particular point of assigning punishment.

Welcome to KMC.

Originally posted by snowdragon
What a perverse way to spin an argument. I woulda thought his message was about ownership and responsibilities of choices made, not your particular point of assigning punishment.

His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances. Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances. Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.

Weird, I got a different interpretation when he said this:



This statement pretty much says that he isn't speaking to the sanctity of life in his post, he's speaking to someone else's carelessness and passing the responsibilities onto taxpayers.

Ahh Facts.

How easily they tear down the leftist side of the argument.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There you have it, folks. It is not about protection, it is about punishment. It is not about the sanctity of life, it is about ensuring women face consequences for having unsanctioned sex.
1. You're not even quoting a dude who says abortion should be illegal, you're quoting a dude who says he should not be forced to subsidize abortion. How you manage to spin that post into some fetish for torturing women for having sex is beyond me.

2. The point of principle is not "I don't want women having sex therefore I want to punish them" the point of principle is that if you make an unforced uncoerced decision that incurs consequences, you don't get to shift the burden for that decision onto somebody else, you don't get to tell the taxpayer they must subsidize the consequences of your sex life, and in the view of someone who is pro-life you don't get to shift the consequences of that decision onto the child you have conceived by aborting it.

3. This doesn't mean someone whose pro-life is happy about women suffering for their sex lives. I personally am not a moral fan of casual sex or abortion, but I would be really really happy if birth control advanced to the point where unwanted pregnancies were no longer a thing, because that would mean no pre-born humans being aborted, no mother being saddled with a burden she's not optimally ready for, no taxpayer being forced to subsidize someone else's mistakes. I'd be happy if the consequence was eliminated altogether but since that isn't possible then it should be shouldered by the person whose decision lead to the consequence. Virtually nobody is in favor of unwanted pregnancy happening.

4. If this is what you're claiming to be the true motivation of the pro-life crowd, you better watch yourself, because that's a very dark and twisted motivation your impugning close to half of the country with. If half of the country was that demented we'd have a very different culture and set of laws that would more closely resemble the middle east than modern western society.

5. Talk to a lot of pro-life people and I don't think they would dispute that the man should also bare the financial burden of the child, if not stay with the woman and raise the child with her.

It really doesn't seem like you're interested in an honest conversation when you say this, it seems like you're instead trying to castigate those who disagree with you politically with the most twisted motive you can imagine. And I think that's a very dishonest and despicable tactic to use.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Weird, I got a different interpretation when he said this:

This statement pretty much says that he isn't speaking to the sanctity of life in his post, he's speaking to someone else's carelessness and passing the responsibilities onto taxpayers.

Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.

Abortion is not funded by taxpayers. However, most women who seek abortion services are living at or below the federal poverty level. Carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a cost to tax payers in the form of social programs, whereas terminating the pregnancy would cost the tax payers nothing, and would actually be a net savings. So if that is his metric, it is a complete failure.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.
No you ****nut, he said he shouldn't have to subsidize abortion for bad decision making. He didn't say it should be illegal. Are you blind?

I wasn't aware you're a mind reader who can sniff out his true policy positions and intentions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Despite claiming to be neutral, only supporting abortion in instances of rape and the health or life of the mother is a Pro-Life position. And it reveals the disengenuousness thereof: they purport to be about principle, but are willing to compromise that principle so as to not appear ideologically extreme. He unwittingly admitted their true position, which is that women should face consequences for getting pregnant, even though they do not have to.

Oh, the black and white position. He certainly didn't seem to be about principle just about tax dollars.



I didn't say he was correct, abortions are expensive for those in poverty. It isn't a free ride for them.

With that said Planned Parenthood does have a number of services available for pregnancy prevention and those in poverty on medicaid can get different contraceptives to prevent the expensive cost of abortions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
His argument is perverse. If it was about the sanctity of life, then he would not permit abortion under any circumstances.

False Dichotomy. You can view life sanctimoniously but still realize it's stupid as f*ck to force a rape victim to raise a rape baby or force a mother to die (possibly killing both the baby and the mother).

"Life is precious but I am not a heartless bastard."

Sheesh, even us pro-lifer Mormons agree abortion is acceptable in certain circumstances.



Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Instead, he outright admits that it is about making women suffer consequences, even though abortion is a completely legal and valid alternative.

Why are you focusing on the woman so much? Why is a white man so concerned with a woman's uterus? Hmmmmm? Seems both parties will be responsible for that baby, not just the woman, under the law.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Abortion is not funded by taxpayers. However, most women who seek abortion services are living at or below the federal poverty level. Carrying the pregnancy to term would result in a cost to tax payers in the form of social programs, whereas terminating the pregnancy would cost the tax payers nothing, and would actually be a net savings. So if that is his metric, it is a complete failure.


Abortion should be paid for by taxpayers under a UHC solution. So should contraceptives.


Free contraceptives: far far far less abortions.


Seems like an easy choice for tax payer money...

Yet people can't make the Free and Easy Choice to keep it in their pants.

But then that is what the Nanny State is for. If you want a Nanny that kills all te babies that is.

Supported!

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's a chronic troll. He hasn't just been trolling KMC for years, his name shows up on other websites, too. He's....tame and harmless, actually. Don't let him get to you.


Yeah, was just hoping he would respond to a genuine request to debate or at least reasonable discussion when offered, and since he's not, figured he's not worth talking to. Easy enough to just put him on ignore, tho.

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
While I do think the amount of abortions in the US is alarming, exactly how does eliminating a means of having a legal or safe one boasts better results? Wouldn't it be better to promote a means of living where the need of abortion is less likely?

As for the bribe thing, exactly what good does this actually do in the long term if it actually went through? If there are concerns about using federal funds for Planned Parenthood, then maybe we can find methods where citizens can set up a payment plan. Or alternatively look at exactly how much of citizens taxes are used as federal and device a budget that would solve such a tax burden.

The problem here is that there are people (such as myself) that see abortion as the actual taking of human life (and let's be honest, attempts to simply dehumanize the unborn has been based on some pretty weak logic). I mean, there are instances where abortion is medically necessary or done out of compassion for the mother (rape) where you will get little/no resistance from either side (of course, there will always be the extremes from either side who won't budge an inch) but the idea that we should just keep it legal because making it illegal may simply have questionable success in reducing the numbers is strange to me, I mean would making murder legal have no chance of increasing its numbers? Would making it illegal again reduce it? Logic dictates that making something illegal would reduce its numbers, not always the case but that should be the rule not the exception.

But in honesty, personally, I feel that we're too far gone to get a full illegalization of abortion. At most I just want to make it so that people who don't agree with it/don't want any part in it don't have to pay for it and to at least hope that it doesn't get any worse than it already is.

Oh but he'll twist your words. He'll do what he can to maintain his conceptualization of the EEEEEVVVVIIIIIIIL right-wingers.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Oh but he'll twist your words. He'll do what he can to maintain his conceptualization of the EEEEEVVVVIIIIIIIL right-wingers.

Am not even a right-winger. If I had to give a party I lean in, it would be classic liberals. Especially once I began to listen to the like of Thomas Sowell.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, no federal tax dollars have gone to abortion services ever. So why raise a non-issue?

Because it is emblematic of his larger objection, which is that of personal responsibility, and making sure that women "pay for their own mistakes." His own words belie the defense you are trying to make for him.

As I pointed out previously, if it was truly about not burdening the taxpayer, then A.) he would not have raised the objection in the first place because none of his federal tax dollars have or do pay for abortions, and B.) he would support abortion because it actually reduces the burden on the tax payers.

That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all. Bingo

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, you are right wing now. So I was entirely right about you. If you are to be believed, then I was aware of your political leanings before you were. hahahaha poor DMB.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, you are right wing now. So I was entirely right about you. If you are to be believed, then I was aware of your political leanings before you were.
Not really because my political stances were different at the time. I was fully on board with left-wing economic policy when you accused me of being an eeevvvviiiiil right-winger.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Not really because my political stances were different at the time. I was fully on board with left-wing economic policy when you accused me of being an eeevvvviiiiil right-winger.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing. Wah wah wah.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Not really because my political stances were different at the time. I was fully on board with left-wing economic policy when you accused me of being an eeevvvviiiiil right-winger.

You were accusing me of being right-wing at a time when I wasn't right-wing, you don't get to say you were correct about my positions at that time because I later became right wing. adampoe saw into your heart and now you're frightened.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
adampoe saw into your heart and now you’re frightened.

As I am oft to say, "You may be new to me, but I am not new to people." I see through all this facile bullshit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all.

I didn't say he was correct, abortions are expensive for those in poverty. It isn't a free ride for them.

With that said Planned Parenthood does have a number of services available for pregnancy prevention and those in poverty on Medicaid can get different contraceptives to prevent the expensive cost of abortions.

In the current state of affairs, I'm for UHC (which should cover abortions and contraceptives.)



I don't need to make a defence for him, I just don't feel the need to stand on a soapbox to preach back to those preaching.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
As I am oft to say, "You may be new to me, but I am not new to people." I see through all this facile bullshit.
Except no, you saw through nothing. You assumed I held certain positions and political alignment I did not hold, and I later shifted to a different set of positions. You didn't see through jack shit, your assessment was wrong, you're full of shit.

And your attempts to mind read are truly what is facile bullshit.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except no, you saw through nothing. You assumed I held certain positions and political alignment I did not hold, and I later shifted to a different set of positions. You didn't see through jack shit, your assessment was wrong, you're full of shit.

And your attempts to mind read are truly what is facile bullshit.

Yet, here you are, seated squarely on the side of the political aisle where I said you were. So obviously, you were broadcasting your political leanings, and did not even know it. But I did.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, here you are, seated squarely on the side of the political aisle where I said you were. So obviously, you were broadcasting your political leanings, and did not even know it. But I did.
I wasn't when you said I was you ****ing moron, and I didn't have those political leanings at the time.

I had no political leanings towards right-wing economic policy and resisted very stringently arguments for me to be right-wing economically because at the time I believed in the principle of some level of economic wealth redistribution and desperately clung to the notion that government policy and social programs were the solution to poverty. I was then presented with practical and principled arguments I found convincing after you accused me of being right-wing and shifted a lot of my economic stances. I held absolutely ****-all preference for right-wing economics when you accused me of being right-wing, so your weird conclusion that you saw something beneath the surface or some shit is absolutely baseless.

You assumed I was on the right specifically because I disagreed with all this social justice nonsense, but you were wrong. At the time I was speaking out about it because I actually wanted the political left-wing to succeed and thought it was retarded that other leftists were participating in or failing to call out this identity politics race baiting bullshit that is immoral on the basis of holding people from different races to different standards, and impractical on the basis of alienating a lot of the voter base.

If you thought opposing inter-sectional identity politics is inherently right-wing, then you were sorely mistaken, and if you thought you had an insight into my economic principles or leanings at the time, I did not hold right-wing economic stances principles or sympathies at the time and only reluctantly shifted to a right-wing economic perspective.

You are full of shit Adam. You are not some left-wing inquisitor who can read minds and determine peoples "true thoughts," you assumed I was right-wing based on shitty logic, and then I ended up becoming right-wing later for economic reasons that were not at all embedded in my leanings or principles at the time of your accusation. You have no idea what the **** you are talking about when you presume to think you can see through me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who said he is not allowed to change his mind? I am merely pointing out that I was evidently aware of his change of mind before he was.
Except no you weren't, because the reason you assumed I was right-wing (opposition to identity politics.. which is just ****ing stupid to begin with, opposing intersectional identity politics doesn't make you right-wing anymore than opposing white nationalism makes you left-wing) was completely different from the reason why I ended up becoming right-wing (a shift in economic perspective that I did not hold any leaning or sympathy towards at the time).

Dude, you need to chill you're going to stroke out just posting on forums before you can buy a beer.

You aren't going to reach across the "isle" with this guy.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except no you weren't, because the reason you assumed I was right-wing (opposition to identity politics.. which is just ****ing stupid to begin with, opposing intersectional identity politics doesn't make you right-wing anymore than opposing white nationalism makes you left-wing) was completely different from the reason why I ended up becoming right-wing (a shift in economic perspective that I did not hold any leaning or sympathy towards at the time).

Yet, despite your missive, I still arrived at the correct conclusion, regardless.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, despite your missive, I still arrived at the correct conclusion, regardless.
1. Arriving at the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons is luck rather than skill. It is not evidence you actually knew what you were talking about or that you know how to read people. If your claim is that your assessment of me at the time was correct and that you could read me and "see through my facile bullshit" then you're sorely mistaken there. You are trying to use this as evidence of your capacity for insight into other people when the insight you actually used to reach your conclusion was completely wrong.

2. No you didn't arrive at the correct conclusion because I was not a right-winger at the time and didn't yet hold leanings or sympathies towards the stances that would shift me to the right.

Me becoming right-wing later on for completely different reasons than the ones you erroneously used to assume I was right-wing doesn't change the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about when you accused me of being right-wing when I was on the left.

eat

Originally posted by snowdragon
Dude, you need to chill you're going to stroke out just posting on forums before you can buy a beer.

You aren't going to reach across the "isle" with this guy. Pretty much, DMB needs to chillax. Adam has made a rational argument and DMB is throwing his toys out of the pram.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Pretty much, DMB needs to chillax. Adam has made a rational argument and DMB is throwing his toys out of the pram.

Perhaps but his narcissism keeps him from giving the real discussion.

It practically draws out to NPD, similar to you as well.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Perhaps but his narcissism keeps him from giving the real discussion. I don't see DMB as narcissistic, autistic possibly, socially awkward definitely, narcissistic, nope I don't see it. I'd say it's his IQ that stops him giving the real discussion. Not narcissism. I think DMB needs to step away from his computer and masturbate furiously until he is relaxed. It worked for me when I was a virgin a bit younger than his 16 years of age.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
I don't see DMB as narcissistic, autistic possibly, socially awkward definitely, narcissistic, nope I don't see it. I'd say it's his IQ that stops him giving the real discussion. Not narcissism. I think DMB needs to step away from his computer and masturbate furiously until he is relaxed. It worked for me when I was a virgin a bit younger than his 16 years of age.

Funny you would pick DMB not Adam. Adam is who I was assigning the discussion to. At the very least you are hilarious to understand.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Funny you pick on DMB. Corrected and agreed

Originally posted by Beniboybling
eat +


*reported for use of improper behavioral and insulting emoticons*

TBH it was pretty obvious where DMB's leanings were even if he pretended to be more neutral than he really was.

That and being Neutral isn't really a side.

Originally posted by Nephthys
TBH it was pretty obvious where DMB's leanings were even if he pretended to be more neutral than he really was.
Do you have anything to back up my right-wing leanings before my shift on economic principle which took place after Adam's assumption?

And being opposed to intersectional identity politics is not evidence of right-wing leanings any more than being opposed to white identity politics is of left-wing leanings.

Remember Emp. They do all of their "THINKING" with their "FEE FEE's".

Them FEE FEEing this way about you makes them correct.

No Point in arguing with them about it.

Sides you might HURT their "FEE FEE"S" and force them to go crying to a Mommy-rator to ...."FIX This PROBLEM for them".

Cause that is what Fee Fee Fascists do.

Originally posted by Nephthys
TBH it was pretty obvious where DMB's leanings were even if he pretended to be more neutral than he really was. Agreed.

PB, AP and Nep are like those old school racists that believe having even one drop one drop of non-white blood makes you a ______

Just replace drop of blood with agreeing with one political opinion and ______ with right-wing.

Yeah it's basically a purity spiral. If you don't agree with intersectional identity politics then you're automatically on the right.

Judgementally judging someone as judgemental.....

Intriguing.

Well you're judgmentally judging someone as being judgmentally judgmental about someone else being judgmental.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well you're judgmentally judging someone as being judgmentally judgmental about someone else being judgmental.

Judgeception!

A judgement within a judgement within a judgement...

So much judgement in this thread.

They do tend to get Pissy when you stray off the Approved Letters List.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, no federal tax dollars have gone to abortion services ever. So why raise a non-issue?

As I pointed out previously, if it was truly about not burdening the taxpayer, then A.) he would not have raised the objection in the first place because none of his federal tax dollars have or do pay for abortions, and B.) he would support abortion because it actually reduces the burden on the tax payers.

That he did A. and not B., demonstrates that it is not about the allocation of tax money at all.
Hmmm?

Anyone wanna address this?

I was under the impression taxpayer money was given to planned parenthood

PP does get a good deal of govt money, they just don't use any of it for abortions.

Originally posted by Nibedicus



The problem here is that there are people (such as myself) that see abortion as the actual taking of human life (and let's be honest, attempts to simply dehumanize the unborn has been based on some pretty weak logic). I mean, there are instances where abortion is medically necessary or done out of compassion for the mother (rape) where you will get little/no resistance from either side (of course, there will always be the extremes from either side who won't budge an inch) but the idea that we should just keep it legal because making it illegal may simply have questionable success in reducing the numbers is strange to me, I mean would making murder legal have no chance of increasing its numbers? Would making it illegal again reduce it? Logic dictates that making something illegal would reduce its numbers, not always the case but that should be the rule not the exception.

But in honesty, personally, I feel that we're too far gone to get a full illegalization of abortion. At most I just want to make it so that people who don't agree with it/don't want any part in it don't have to pay for it and to at least hope that it doesn't get any worse than it already is.

That's a fair outlook to have. Though I would argue that analyzing the reasons why abortions in the United States are at such high numbers should also be a step taken: as finding a solution to eliminate the need for abortions would go a long way in promoting positive living environment for the persons involved.

As far as outside civilian responsibilities, I pretty sure that there would be some type of payment regardless of the outcome.

I'm not really into gender politics for a reason, as long as what someone is calling themself and doing isn't hurting someone. It's not an issue. I really think it's only a problem because of bigots. Many things are a much bigger issue, and the biggest, even bigger the racial inequality. Will always be poverty.

Originally posted by Silent Master
PP does get a good deal of govt money, they just don't use any of it for abortions.
So then that govt money would be going into things preventing situations where abortion would be a choice.

They still should not get subsidized by the taxpayer if they donate millions of dollars to democrats.

It depends on how you look at it, while they don't specifically use the government money on abortions, them getting the money allows them to use their other non-govt funding on abortions.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It depends on how you look at it, while they don't specifically use the government money on abortions, them getting the money allows them to use their other non-govt funding on abortions.
^This too^

Originally posted by Emperordmb
They still should not get subsidized by the taxpayer if they donate millions of dollars to democrats.

If corporations are people, and money is speech, then why do you hate the First Amendment?

4NNpkv3Us1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNpkv3Us1I

Assuming it's all true and it likely is as Oliver isn't really known as a liar. Rather shocking.

Happy my tax dollars do not fun these charlatans in Ca.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Present a logically equivocal syllogism, and I will let you know. He had to google syllogism.