Life

Appreciated. First time I've seen that and stats easily outweigh personal anecdote. Guess I'm mistaken.

I travel to Europe quite often and I hear the same sentiment a lot from the people.

Being the resident Bills fan, I can tell you that there is nothing good about Marrone and the team went 9-7 in spite of him. I blame Schwartz who built the 2nd best defense in the league that year. Nate Hackett was a terrible OC (run/run/pass/punt is his general playbook) and he worked under Marrone in Buffalo. ​Gonna be a long season in Jacksonville next year. Sean McDermott is now HC in Buffalo. Took a look at his bio to find out why and the connection to Mike Tomlin sticks out. Considering that Whaley made the executive call this time on the HC, it makes a lot of sense (both have history with Tomlin).

It completely is. ​Being someone who has never lived a day in his life in the USA, I can tell you that the general feeling outside of the USA is that Obama is a joke when it comes to foreign policy. Bibi ain't much better (I'm look at you, Turkish relations) but it's like calling Bibi the tallest midget in the room. He'd still be a midget.

HELP, I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING ​The next 4 years are going to be priceless.

Bad Trump. Bad. Bad boy. ​Seriously, I am not happy about the anti-vaxxer appointment. Had a feeling this would happen, was hoping it wouldn't. [spoiler=The Death of Journalistic Integrity]

Makes me a libertarian, in that case. Or to be accurate, a Conservatarian.

I love that chart. "Denying of racism" means more likely to support Trump. ​Because not buying into your ideological claims means racism and therefore a Trump supporter. ​By the way, can we put a statute of limitations on any claims about slavery and Jim Crow? Slavery was ended 150 years ago. Jim Crow ended 50 years ago. Can you stop blaming white people for shit that happened before most of them were even born?

The problem is that you're denying science by saying that it is a medical necessity to have a procedure that is less than 50 years old. The economic argument is a separate issue. If you can't separate the two, then we can't have a conversation about it.

I don't think the why matters because you're equating economic necessity with medical necessity. So it is a medical necessity that a woman kill a baby? Is that what you're saying?

OK, I'll bite. ​Do you think that abortion is a medical necessity? Aside from the case where it is life-threatening to the mother (which I am all for as I have stated), is it a medical necessity that she have an abortion? If not, then it is medicine of convenience, economic argument aside.

That's not the point. I don't want to fund necessary evil in any way, shape or form. You can't spin it by saying "well, it's only a portion of their business and your money doesn't go towards THAT". I don't care. I don't want any of my money going to any part of it. It can't be that difficult to understand. This is the only point I'm going to respond to. ​If you don't care about the dictionary definition of words, then we have nothing to talk about. If you want to change a word for your own benefit from the academic definition of said word, then I'm cutting this conversation off right here. Because you are not willing to have an honest conversation.

- Which one is a dead link? Both the New York Post and Slate articles work fine for me. - ​Also, I don't want my money going toward the retards in the Knesset so... same boat. The only difference is that this is something that I can change via democratic vote. If abortion law in Israel were to ever change to a point where it is publicly funded or legal past 20 weeks, I would never vote for a party that didn't include changing the law back in its platform. ​- Here is how I define necessity. ​Seriously, what do you want me to say? Women randomly get pregnant on the whole? I thought most people here believed that Christianity was a crock of shit? But hell, I guess the Virgin Mary did get pregnant by divine will since maybe women do just randomly develop a bun in the oven similar to cancer or any other disease. ​[Disclaimer: This whole point is me being snarky.] ​- Yes, I do think that public health care is a bad idea. I also know that it'll never get overturned. But abortion is different. This is patently false. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/ ​Over half a million abortions in a single year in the USA alone. 12.5 abortions per 1000 women. That's not rare.​

Excluding abnormal circumstances that require a lot of consultation and evidence to prove that such is the case.

​Those are both rare cases that are outside of the norm. You know this and that is why you asked specifically. It might be 3% of services but it's something like 40% of the revenue due to how much abortions cost as opposed to say... tampons. Here is another WaPo article which debunks the 3% claim (it also debunks the 94% claim so I'll retract that one). ​That is significant. And furthermore, I personally do not want any of my money to go to an organization that also engages in abortions, whether or not I pay for them. Which point? Privatization? I think the fact that it is medicine of convenience is enough to show that it does not require public funding. I don't care if it is profitable; abortion should have a stigma to it because as I stated above, you are killing a baby. ​As for political power, yeah pretty much. Planned Parenthood essentially endorsed Harris in her Senate run after she ordered a highly unethical DoJ raid on an opponent of Planned Parenthood who may have had evidence of at least one clinic selling baby parts off. We don't know for certain because it seems like the DoJ went out of their way to cover it up. If that is not shady, then we have different definitions of the term "shady". ​Also, Res' point has been debunked in this post.

I thought I mentioned that? ​Is it acceptable for a private company to hold political power and influence DoJ raids on critics of abortion? Few other points (those less relevant to the topic at hand): - This isn't medicine of necessity; this is medicine of convenience. Shit man, women don't just randomly get pregnant the same way they develop cancer. Pregnancy is a reaction to unprotected sex which is irresponsible if the goal is to not get pregnant. I refuse to pay for medicine of convenience. ​- That is how abortions on babies who are about 16 weeks old and above (it might even be earlier) is performed. So if 16 weeks is now late-term abortion, that's fine. - I will agree with you on the fact that it is necessary evil. The problem is the euphanisms to hide the fact that this is necessary evil. A lot of people I know refuse to even admit that. So kudos to you for doing so.

@bold: I do. That's why I think that it should be legal until 20 weeks ​(because I care about the economic argument regarding abortion). But I am going to call it what it is. It is not "terminating a pregnancy". It is "killing a baby". If you don't like that term, too bad. Because the process of abortion is pulling a baby out of the uterus almost completely, severing its spinal cord with scissors and then pulling the rest of the baby out of the womb. That's abortion in a nutshell. Graphic enough? ​Unless, of course, you're Lena Dunham who wishes that she could have the chance to kill a baby. ​If you want to talk about sympathy, then try having some sympathy for the one life that doesn't get a voice. As for the rest of your point, the issue is this. If there is legal weight behind Planned Parenthood which shuts down investigative journalism with rogue DoJ raids at even one clinic, that makes me want to investigate all of them in order to make sure that this is an isolated incident. Can we both agree that there is something wrong when what should be a private company has political clout? EDIT: I never addressed your point regarding "you wouldn't pay for it". Which is false. If my taxpayer dollars are funding a program that includes abortions, then yes, I am indirectly paying to kill babies. What's wrong with having Planned Parenthood be entirely privately funded? Because they offer other services? Then take out abortions (which is 90% of their business) from the platform and I'll consider paying for it.

Oh? http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ ​After that, the DoJ allegedly conducted a raid on David Daleiden and seized documents and videos relating to the investigative journalism that he was performing on Planned Parenthood. This is what Daleiden claims and I have no reason to not believe it because a false claim would be much more damaging since he is claiming that the California AG supervised the raid due to political motives (here is the WaPo's article about Kamala Harris and Planned Parenthood). Harris was running for Senate as a Democrat at the time and won the race with support from Planned Parenthood. ​Now, this is Snopes' attempt to fact-check this case and their result is essentially "unconclusive". There's enough here to say "well, this certainly looks shady" and I would certainly like to know what exactly the DoJ seized from Daleiden's residence. But making the claim that "they don't exist" regarding evidence of shady practices in PP is just silly. ​I do think Planned Parenthood should be entirely privately funded, mind you. Killing a baby shouldn't be a constitutional right that forces me to pay for it. ​EDIT: Interestingly enough, James O'Keefe is mentioned by Snopes and while they're referring to ACORN when talking about O'Keefe, I think that it's safe to say that his investigative journalism results (as shown by Project Veritas Action a few months ago) are quite... revealing.

Your mother is like Soviet Russia. Every man gets his share.

Actually, I'm not. Let me give you a good example that's close to home. ​As long as Bibi keeps the PA from wanting a peace deal by continuously trying to settle areas around Ariel, he keeps getting elected and we keep going to war. Tension and turmoil is literally keeping Bibi in power here.

You know, I really think that Dorethy got kicked in the face by a horse or something. ​Oh, warriors? Lott, no contest. He doesn't get doubled by like... everything.

Nope, you're forgetting about geo-political factors too. Sometimes, the turmoil itself is something they benefit from.

That's not that far from the truth while not actually true. ​According to the Podesta emails, the Clinton camp knew that the Saudis and Yemen were (and probably still are) financing ISIS. My assumption for why is the same reason why Saudi/Israeli relations have warmed in recent years: the Saudis are terrified of Iran. And since Clinton was "funded" by the Saudis by way of the Clinton Foundation, it's not that difficult of a leap to say "the USA is backing ISIS" because the current government wasn't exactly against it when you get to the root of the matter.

I've been to Cali twice (twice to LA and once to San Fran). Hate LA, San Fran was actually pretty great aside from the "don't go too far in this direction or you might as well be in South Side Chicago" explanation I got from the hostel I was staying at. ​But yeah, the "fuck California" opinion really comes from Americans outside of California. I like to pretend to be full Israeli with the harsh accent and that's when Americans tell me that Cali is a cesspool and nothing more.

So I was looking at something interesting regarding the electoral college and the popular vote. ​Hillary Clinton's vote margin in California alone is greater than the vote margin in the popular vote. Cutting out the California voting margin (but giving the state still to Clinton) would mean that outside of California, Trump barely won the popular vote. ​Yep, electoral college did its job well. It quite literally prevented California from holding all of the power by simply existing.