Life
-
Posts
3,829 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Life
-
-
Marrone also jumped ship from the Bills after a 9-7 season for whatever reason. I've generally not heard anything good about Marrone.
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).
-
yeah, it's like saying the recent us-israeli relations decision was "fucking hilarious"
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.
-
Link: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/01/10/did-4chan-troll-the-cia-n2269811
Buzzfeed and some idiotic Republican politician falling for this is fine, if hilariously cringe-worthy. The fact that, if this is true, it got all the way to the CIA without being debunked is disgusting and further fuels my descent into suicidal misanthropy.
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]
-
You are not a libertarian. At least I so hope. You might agree with a lot of the policies they have been promoting over the last few years, but that does not make you a libertarian. You need to agree with core ideology like the non aggression principle, self ownership, homesteading, or god forbid you actually think Ayn Rand was right. If anything you are a republican in the vein of Goldwater, which I guess makes you a republican without a party(though Trump seems to be ideologically very similar).
Makes me a libertarian, in that case. Or to be accurate, a Conservatarian.
-
Not exactly shocking, but a interesting read, especially considering all the discussion about Trump's voter base.
http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/1/4/14160956/trump-racism-sexism-economy-study
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?
-
I think they're a necessity. Full stop.
If you don't think the why matters then you're not interested in having a conversation. You're automatically assuming that my reasoning is that I'm equating the two, when you are incorrect, but since you don't care why I won't say why.
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.
-
Yes I do. Are you going to ask why? Because that's far more important than what I believe.
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?
-
Please stop pretending that you want to engage in discourse here when the majority of my post explains what exactly I mean. I edited it once or twice as well, but I don't think you care.
fyi obtusely linking a "let me google that for you" for a perfectly legitimate question to something that is subjective, making a shitty joke, and then repeatedly saying this
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.
-
While the 3% figure only gives a small part of the picture, the WaPo article doesn't debunk it, either. That's why I included the bit about it translating to (according to best guesses) 1 in 10 clients walking through the doors of a Planned Parenthood will receive an abortion.
That it constitutes 40% of its revenue is surely a positive thing if you're for not funding abortion, because it indicates that a significant number of PP abortions are self-funded. It's not just that Medicaid doesn't go towards PP's abortion services; it's that Medicaid doesn't go towards any of the PP clinics that provide abortions, so it is already quite separated. None of the Texas clinics that are losing funds perform abortion.
Planned Parenthood is also not the only provider of abortions in the U.S.; they're the largest, but they only perform 40% of the total number of abortions (that's using Life News' statistics, which are on the higher side).
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.
I don't fucking care how the dictionary defines it, I view it as a necessity, you don't, so what do you fucking think is a necessity?
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.
-
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/planned-parenthoods-services/
this debunks the 94% claim, saying that it's probably around 12%. The source that the wapo article lists is a dead link.
i mean i don't want any of my money going to funding all of the assholes in congress but something's gotta give... in other words, nobody cares what you want
define "necessity"
aren't you against public healthcare anyway? By your viewpoint no medicine is of necessity to begin with.
- 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.
abortion is not a cosmetic procedure. it is not a procedure of convenience. it happens very rarely and is sometimes life-threatening to the mother. and abortions do have a fucking stigma. you are arguing dishonestly yet again. you are exaggerating the rate of abortion and its cost to the public, diminishing the possibility of complications to the point of claiming it's negligible, and dehumanizing the clinical professionals and people that have to go through these.
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.
-
I know. I was asking you to clarify if you meant under 20 weeks excluding abnormal circumstances, or under 20 weeks no exceptions.
Excluding abnormal circumstances that require a lot of consultation and evidence to prove that such is the case.
-
But what if the mother's life is in jeopardy or there is a high chance of horrible birth defects (to the degree that one could argue abortion would be a 'mercy'?
Those are both rare cases that are outside of the norm. You know this and that is why you asked specifically.
3% of the services Planned Parenthood provides are abortions, which translates to 1in 10 of its clients receives an abortion.
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.
well, you mentioned you agreed with hylian, but you never responded to my point about it.
i don't know what it means to hold political power in this case, anyway. like, do i call mrs harris and boom! i get a raid?
it was more a jab about you not being a united states citizen.
2 things: 1. you didn't respond to the actual point of privatization, and if you keep dodging it i will no longer join in discourse with you (ie, abortions have to become profitable). also, of course, res' point is a beautiful one.
2. everyone has to pay taxes for things they are morally opposed to. another necessary evil. it's part of the price you have to pay for living in a country.
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'm not going to speak at length about abortion because i understand. i understand the difficulty in saying something like this is ok or necessary. i hate the phrase, but i'll say that i think abortion is sometimes the necessary evil and leave it at that. also, only late term abortions are like that.
in any case, this is a medical procedure, and i think medicine should largely be centralized/public. as such i cannot say i would like something like this to have a profit-focused incentive. that is even more of a disgusting thought to me. you realize that if abortion becomes privatized, businesses will have to find ways to make abortions profitable? it is already bad enough that we've done that with prison.
the "rest of my point" was actually the crux of the argument lol. and no, i do not agree. you have changed the issue. first respond to it being "shady," because i don't see how it is.
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.
-
so firstly, thanks for the response. i learned something. :)
one of...how many facilities? planned parenthood is not "SHADY" based off of one lone "unconclusive" story. (you mean inconclusive btw.) is mcdonald's shady? the city of new york? lol. we know what goes on at 99.99% of the facilities, so planned parenthood is not "shady."
abortion isn't killing babies, and you don't pay for it. your portrait of abortion dehumanizes the mothers that actually have to go through making such a difficult decision. abortions are necessary, as sad as it is. the pro-lifers that paint the picture of doctors "ripping babies out of the womb" is one of the most intellectually dishonest and delusional arguments i've ever heard. like--have some fucking sympathy for the living human being that has to deal with the choice to terminate a pregnancy. indeed, biologically and emotionally, a family can become distraught from the procedure. it hurts all parties involved.
@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.
-
they don't exist.
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. -
you're literally spouting mgs4 levels of conspiracy bullshit LOL
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. -
well they don't benefit from the turmoil itself, they just benefit from the imperialism, ie. extraction of power and resources, that inevitably puts it in turmoil.
Nope, you're forgetting about geo-political factors too. Sometimes, the turmoil itself is something they benefit from.
-
In Russia and many other countries, they believe that US is actually backing ISIS, not Russia is trying to slow US down from killing ISIS.
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.
-
Yeah; basically people in California are currently being punished merely for residing in California. We're not a homogenous state with a hive mind. We're as varied here as anywhere else.
But I often get a very 'fuck California' vibe.
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. -
Why would someone ever destroy a fan's property for being for the other team?
Normally, yes, it's wrong to be glad that someone's hurt or wish that someone get hurt. But this is a case where the injured person was a dick earlier. He had it coming. And it's not like he had his career ended or anything. Now a career ending injury I would never wish on someone for any reason, not even Hill or Burfict.
It's a towel, Ana. Calm the fuck down. The world won't end because some shitty little yellow rag got ripped in half.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
I travel to Europe quite often and I hear the same sentiment a lot from the people.