I am pro choice, but for everyone. If a woman can be irresponsible and bang a dude without a condom even though she doesn't want kids..and can then shirk all responsibility, I want men to be able to shirk all responsibility for a kid too. Except we can't, we get told to "keep it in your pants". Nobody says to a woman getting an abortion "shoulda kept them legs closed" because then the woman would cry about being sl*t shamed and how people hate women.
But I do not believe the government should PAY for abortions. If you were too stupid to buy a condom you deserve to pay for your own abortion.
I don't know how things are in the US, but in the UK we have a problem of young women who parade the streets at night getting drunk and harassing their male friends literally trying to get pregnant for a free house on the council.
The guy usually doesn't want anything to do with her but will pay child support if he works, so most of them don't.
The worst part? Some women will give the guy drinks, spike those drinks with viagra and suck his cock in a remote area outside of the town and beg to be ****ed without a condom in the vagina because of how good it feels.
This happened to me at 18, but the viagra part happened to a friend of mine.
Luckily I pulled out and she showed signs of pregnancy way after I could have possibly inpregnanted her. She didn't even know who the father was so that is justice, I guess.
There are other cases where the father is known and he's stuck in this stupid shitty situation where he's providing for a child with a horrible mother on benefits.
That is wrong, and we have legal abortion here, so that isn't solving that problem at all.
Oh yeah, abortion. I agree with morning after and birth control pills. After two weeks, you better have a bloody good excuse why you didn't take precaution.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
I don't know how things are in the US, but in the UK we have a problem of young women who parade the streets at night getting drunk and harassing their male friends literally trying to get pregnant for a free house on the council.
Your fantasies of drunken women throwing themselves at you is not reality.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your fantasies of drunken women throwing themselves at you is not reality.
Bullshit, most women would love to move into xyz's room in his dad's house he shares with his dad and his brothers. And don't get me started on the sweet betfair winnings, getting pregnant by him will be her ticket to easy street.
Anyhow, XYZ's offtopic "I hate the Jews!" trolling aside.
Worth the read:
"I will give you everything" promises Trump in announcing his energy plan
We'll preserve our natural resources while extracting them as quickly as possible.
Yesterday, in a press conference and speech in North Dakota, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced what some are terming his energy policy. His announcement was extremely short on specifics, included factual inaccuracies, and in some cases contained obvious internal contradictions. As such, what he said might better be termed "energy aspirations." We'll have to wait for the details to see how these aspirations might eventually lead to policy.
What were those aspirations? There were two related themes in the announcements: extraction is good, and regulations are badbecause they tend to limit extraction. So Trump will get rid of a lot of the latter in order to boost the former. But, at the same time, he'll preserve our air, water, and natural resources.
At one point, Trump estimated that "75 percent of our rules and regulations are bad for us." So he'd get rid of most of them: "Any regulation that's outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped, and scrapped completely." Lest there be any confusion about whose rules were problematic, he went on to accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of using "totalitarian tactics" and accused the Obama administration of blocking extraction.
There's a small problem with that narrative: under the Obama administration, the US has become the world's single largest producer of oil and natural gas. To sustain this criticism, Trump had to find a statistic that sounded bad; he settled on blaming Obama for "the lowest oil rig count," even though that clearly has no relationship to production.
This sort of cognitive dissonance pervaded the speech. Trump promised to make US energy independent and free from international markets, yet at the same time promised to approve the Keystone pipeline, which would bring in oil from another country. His promised approval got applause from the crowd in North Dakota, even though the Canadian oil would be competing with their own local production.
Regarding other extractive industries, Trump claimed that "We're going to save the coal industry." When a reporter pointed out that coal is dying largely because of cheap wind and natural gas, as well as falling foreign demand, Trump claimed coal would be much cheaper and therefore more competitive if there were less regulation. "All I can do is free up the coal, and that's what I'm going to do," he responded.
When speaking of renewable energy sources, Trump basically said we'd use them, but they're terrible. After claiming "I know a lot about solar," Trump went on to say it had a 30-year payback time, which is simply false except for some very specific and rare circumstances. Unsubsidized wind power, which is cheaper than coal in many areas of the country, was also targeted. "Wind is very expensive—without subsidy, wind doesn't work," Trump misstated, before saying, "You go to various places in California, it's killing all the eagles."
Eagles, then, would seem to be in the "real" category in Trump's statement “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.” Although he never said so explicitly, climate change appears to be in the phony category, based on his intended policy changes.
"We're going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions, including the Climate Action Plan," Trump promised. But he apparently doesn't know what the Climate Action Plan is, since earlier he had claimed it was cap-and-trade (it will include that only if states choose to implement emissions reductions that way). In any case, given that the EPA has already made an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act, it's not clear Trump would have the legal authority to stop these emissions limits.
Similarly, he claimed the Paris climate agreement—which he'd also back out of—would give foreign bureaucrats the ability to control US energy policy. In reality, the agreement calls for each nation to individually craft and implement its own plan for controlling carbon emissions.
As for the 25 percent of regulations that would remain in a Trump administration, they would be modified based on "trust [in] local officials and local residents." Businesses generally hate this, as it's a recipe for facing a patchwork of regulations rather than a single set of nationwide standards. Yet Trump has also claimed that he'll provide the exact opposite: regulatory certainty for industry, something he said was very important.
Despite getting rid of most regulations, Trump promised that clean air and water would be priorities (something the local officials he praised have frequently been indifferent to), and he'd preserve our natural beauty. But he also promised he'd preserve our wealth of fossil fuel resources, while at the same time arranging to extract them as quickly as possible. This may mean that his definition of "preserve" needs clarification.
But everything in this set of announcements needs clarification. It has become normal for politicians to over promise during the campaign and even to take positions that are at variance with reality should those play well with the voters. But the frequency of those instances in these announcements, along with the large number of times the promises are incompatible with each other, means that there's nothing here that approaches a policy.
Woah, nigga.
Originally posted by Robtard
Anyhow, XYZ's offtopic "I hate the Jews!" trolling aside.Worth the read:
[b]"I will give you everything" promises Trump in announcing his energy plan
We'll preserve our natural resources while extracting them as quickly as possible.
Yesterday, in a press conference and speech in North Dakota, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced what some are terming his energy policy. His announcement was extremely short on specifics, included factual inaccuracies, and in some cases contained obvious internal contradictions. As such, what he said might better be termed "energy aspirations." We'll have to wait for the details to see how these aspirations might eventually lead to policy.
What were those aspirations? There were two related themes in the announcements: extraction is good, and regulations are badbecause they tend to limit extraction. So Trump will get rid of a lot of the latter in order to boost the former. But, at the same time, he'll preserve our air, water, and natural resources.
At one point, Trump estimated that "75 percent of our rules and regulations are bad for us." So he'd get rid of most of them: "Any regulation that's outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped, and scrapped completely." Lest there be any confusion about whose rules were problematic, he went on to accuse the Environmental Protection Agency of using "totalitarian tactics" and accused the Obama administration of blocking extraction.
There's a small problem with that narrative: under the Obama administration, the US has become the world's single largest producer of oil and natural gas. To sustain this criticism, Trump had to find a statistic that sounded bad; he settled on blaming Obama for "the lowest oil rig count," even though that clearly has no relationship to production.
This sort of cognitive dissonance pervaded the speech. Trump promised to make US energy independent and free from international markets, yet at the same time promised to approve the Keystone pipeline, which would bring in oil from another country. His promised approval got applause from the crowd in North Dakota, even though the Canadian oil would be competing with their own local production.
Regarding other extractive industries, Trump claimed that "We're going to save the coal industry." When a reporter pointed out that coal is dying largely because of cheap wind and natural gas, as well as falling foreign demand, Trump claimed coal would be much cheaper and therefore more competitive if there were less regulation. "All I can do is free up the coal, and that's what I'm going to do," he responded.
When speaking of renewable energy sources, Trump basically said we'd use them, but they're terrible. After claiming "I know a lot about solar," Trump went on to say it had a 30-year payback time, which is simply false except for some very specific and rare circumstances. Unsubsidized wind power, which is cheaper than coal in many areas of the country, was also targeted. "Wind is very expensive—without subsidy, wind doesn't work," Trump misstated, before saying, "You go to various places in California, it's killing all the eagles."
Eagles, then, would seem to be in the "real" category in Trump's statement “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.” Although he never said so explicitly, climate change appears to be in the phony category, based on his intended policy changes.
"We're going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions, including the Climate Action Plan," Trump promised. But he apparently doesn't know what the Climate Action Plan is, since earlier he had claimed it was cap-and-trade (it will include that only if states choose to implement emissions reductions that way). In any case, given that the EPA has already made an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act, it's not clear Trump would have the legal authority to stop these emissions limits.
Similarly, he claimed the Paris climate agreement—which he'd also back out of—would give foreign bureaucrats the ability to control US energy policy. In reality, the agreement calls for each nation to individually craft and implement its own plan for controlling carbon emissions.
As for the 25 percent of regulations that would remain in a Trump administration, they would be modified based on "trust [in] local officials and local residents." Businesses generally hate this, as it's a recipe for facing a patchwork of regulations rather than a single set of nationwide standards. Yet Trump has also claimed that he'll provide the exact opposite: regulatory certainty for industry, something he said was very important.
Despite getting rid of most regulations, Trump promised that clean air and water would be priorities (something the local officials he praised have frequently been indifferent to), and he'd preserve our natural beauty. But he also promised he'd preserve our wealth of fossil fuel resources, while at the same time arranging to extract them as quickly as possible. This may mean that his definition of "preserve" needs clarification.
But everything in this set of announcements needs clarification. It has become normal for politicians to over promise during the campaign and even to take positions that are at variance with reality should those play well with the voters. But the frequency of those instances in these announcements, along with the large number of times the promises are incompatible with each other, means that there's nothing here that approaches a policy.
Source Here [/B]
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Look how defensive he is. Lol.
I'm defensive because I said the same could be said about women in America? Just because I spoke the truth doesn't mean I was defensive. Also you even said "look how defensive he is" as if I wasn't just defensive, but overwhelmingly defensive. This confuses me.
I'm just supporting equality man, it's not fair to leave the females out of the discussion. But seriously you're acting like I freaked out and went on a several page long rant.
Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing harder than being a middle-to-upper class white male in America.#itsnoteasybeingwhite
Who said men have it particularly hard? Especially white men?
The post that apparently sparked this all didn't suggest men are horribly oppressed. He talked about some shitty situations men can find themselves in. I mean this is the problem, when people even talk about any issues men might face you just get "oh men have it so hard".
But if you point out women don't really have it hard either suddenly it's "oh you're defensive".
Originally posted by Raisen
american women have it so damn easy
Stop being so defensive with your truth.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm defensive because I said the same could be said about women in America? Just because I spoke the truth doesn't mean I was defensive. Also you even said "look how defensive he is" as if I wasn't just defensive, but overwhelmingly defensive. This confuses me.I'm just supporting equality man, it's not fair to leave the females out of the discussion. But seriously you're acting like I freaked out and went on a several page long rant.
Originally posted by Surtur
Who said men have it particularly hard? Especially white men?The post that apparently sparked this all didn't suggest men are horribly oppressed. He talked about some shitty situations men can find themselves in. I mean this is the problem, when people even talk about any issues men might face you just get "oh men have it so hard".
But if you point out women don't really have it hard either suddenly it's "oh you're defensive".
Stop being so defensive with your truth.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Bullshit, most women would love to move into xyz's room in his dad's house he shares with his dad and his brothers. And don't get me started on the sweet betfair winnings, getting pregnant by him will be her ticket to easy street.