Donald Trump running for president

ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Jiigzz I want to be clear I do think there are some cases where an abortion could be a necessary evil for lack of better term. It’s just hard for me to support the modern day abortion activists. I don’t want morals legislated; my hope would be the people to have higher standards, morals, ethics.

But then the slippery slope of “who’s morals?” It’s all very complicated if people can think past first effect. Most policies, actions, etc have 2nd, 3rd, 4th effects that are ignored until a new single minded solution comes up that adds more problems.

All very complicated.
Modern day pro-abortion activists:

My body, my choice......but I want you to take the vaccine or we will all strip your life away and discriminate against your choice of what you want in your body.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Russia might have weak forces, but their nuclear weapons arsenal is nothing to scoff at. A person might not be able to fist fight, but the second they pull out a firearm them not being able to fist fight is irrelevant.

Syria wasn't ex-soviet union territory. Why would Putin want a nuclear war over a place of dirt somewhere in the middle east? Putin believes Ukraine to be a rightful part of Russia, and I'm willing to bet he is much more willing to extend himself to prove as much. If you're wondering who I believe when it comes to whether or not they would use nuclear weapons, do I believe a random internet person who believes they won't, or a statement from Russia themselves saying they would? I'm more inclined to believe the latter.

Your post still deflects from your original comment that Russia wouldn't use nuclear weapons unless there was a threat on their soil directly. If your only counter argument is that "they haven't yet" it's because NATO hasn't entered into the Ukraine directly yet.

Shooting down missiles isn't still actively moving troops into a country Russia is telling NATO not to enter. Not even remotely the same thing. Russia wants Ukraine, it didn't want Syria
I know this is a older topic I quoting, but check this out, now Russia is sending nuke capable missiles into Belarus.

 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You're comparing a 3rd world economy to a first world one - it's not comparable because poverty and unemployment are so high, and those who get paid are typically farmers for large corps that don't pay fair wages. That on top of poor infrastructure, poor sanitation, lower education and so on. You cant raise wages in a poor economy because the money isn't there - in the US economy it is, but employers refuse to raise because it hurts their profits and earning potential. Walmart, one of the US's largest employers, literally has "how to get food stamps" as part of their onboarding process despite profits in the hundreds of Billions.

Now when you actually compare first world to first world the story is immensely different. Look at Scandinavian countries with some of the highest standards of living available and then look at their minimum and average wages. It's a joke to say that lifting wages doesn't work when the global case study literally tells us it does.
They also let us pay for their military and rank way higher in economic freedom because unlike Americans they seem to have an understanding that you need to make money for the programs they want. They are also vastly smaller which helps in planning.

Everyone always mentions those countries and leaves out key details.

There are so many details that go into economics especially 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc effects that people just don’t seem to critically think about. Wages can rise but not arbitrarily to a made up number that looks good today but in 3 years will not because our governments spending problems.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
At the moment it is absolutely Christian morals being imposed on non-Christians.

Condoms aren't a guarantee against pregnancy, so even when precautions are taken it can still happen.

There are stories of "pro-life" advocates going to abortion clinics who come up with every excuse and justification why they are there because to them their reasons for an abortion are valid and everyone else is a slut. You cant make this stuff up.
I am not doubting you but my stance does not come from religion…it’s from being a father and seeing 3D ultrasounds of my kids. At that point they were babies. People want to kill them at that point on a whim does seem disturbing to me personally.

I just reject modernity and find no surprise the amount of depression, anxiety, obesity, low t, low birth rates, low standards, crime rising, suicides rising, drug addiction, etc, we see today. I do not think any law would fix that. Why would I trust the government to fix anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I know this is a older topic I quoting, but check this out, now Russia is sending nuke capable missiles into Belarus.

Did you see Bush trying to trash the Ukraine invasion but said Iraq accidentally? Couldn’t have happened to a bigger POS. Well deserved.
 

Tunaking14

Active member
Awards
3
  • First Up Vote
  • Established
  • RockStar
I never questioned that the two airplanes hit the WTC, but the Pentagon one was for sure suspect. They show you the NYC crashes over and over again, but the most heavily surveillanced place on earth never released footage until after the FOIA had the government release a choppy low quality 5 frame clip of the crash. Also, there had been a handful of professional pilots in the 9/11 Truth movement who studied the crash who claimed the maneuver was extremely difficult, if not nearly impossible especially for someone who trained in only flying a small plane with very little experience.

Now did a plane hit the Pentagon? Maybe, but I think these are healthy questions to ask that we may never find answers on, but Im leaning on more than likely it was hit with a missile.
The video they did release did NOT show a plane hit the pentagon....it only showed an explosion........the fact that they have never released a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon is all you need to know that it was planned..... I personally know someone who worked at the Pentagon and they just have always said- it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon......... no one piece of evidence has ever shown that it was
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Did you see Bush trying to trash the Ukraine invasion but said Iraq accidentally? Couldn’t have happened to a bigger POS. Well deserved.
LMFAO I missed that!
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The video they did release did NOT show a plane hit the pentagon....it only showed an explosion........the fact that they have never released a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon is all you need to know that it was planned..... I personally know someone who worked at the Pentagon and they just have always said- it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon......... no one piece of evidence has ever shown that it was
Oh yes I get that....you can research the crash site too and it sure is skeptical. I know a military lady whistleblower came out, she was inside the building and walked out of the hole and she didnt see evidence it was an airplane either.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I am not doubting you but my stance does not come from religion…it’s from being a father and seeing 3D ultrasounds of my kids. At that point they were babies. People want to kill them at that point on a whim does seem disturbing to me personally.

I just reject modernity and find no surprise the amount of depression, anxiety, obesity, low t, low birth rates, low standards, crime rising, suicides rising, drug addiction, etc, we see today. I do not think any law would fix that. Why would I trust the government to fix anything?
You ever hear of John P. Holdren? He was Bareback Hussein Obobo's main Science Czar back in the day, he co-wrote book called Ecoscience back in the late 70s and promoted depopulating the planet to save it by drugging the water supply, and also not only promoting abortions in impoverished areas but also promoted infanticide (post birth abortion!.) These people are sick.

Im about to dig up some old stuff I posted on here years ago:

218338


218336

218337


quote:
In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science
policy in the United States
under POTUS Obama, topics include:

+ Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or
not;

+ The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally
put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

+ Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them
against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

+ People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be
required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words,
be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

+ A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy
and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed
international police force.

218339

 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
More WWIII escalation, more broke D.C. showing a barbed wire baseball bat up US taxpayers azzes.

(CNN)The US plans to announce as soon as this week that it has purchased an advanced, medium-to-long range surface-to-air missile defense system for Ukraine, a source familiar with the announcement tells CNN.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
But do you see a point where it no longer is a "bunch of cells?"

I mean at some point it not and we can balance and have reasonable timeline to get it, right?
You do know that people know this, right? Of course there's a line lol

I mean, there IS a balance already. Some argued for late term abortions but that's not what is being argued now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The cop that you think was murdered in D.C. hadnt impacted you at all either, it doesnt mean you cant be compassionate about human life.
If people actually cared about human life, they wouldn't support invading the Middle East. They would allow migrants into their country who come from hard living conditions. They would be begging to extend welfare to struggling people.

But what do we see instead?

People don't have compassion for children. The pro life crowd absolutely do not give a **** about children. They don't give a **** about anyone but themselves.

If they did, why do they fight so hard to make life miserable for everyone else?
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
The autopsy found no evidence of an allergic reaction to chemicals, nor of internal or external injuries, Dr Francisco Diaz said.

Officer Sicknick, 42, was defending the Capitol building from supporters of then President Donald Trump who stormed it on 6 January. He collapsed after returning to his office during the siege, and died the next day in hospital.

In his ruling, Dr Diaz found Officer Sicknick died of a medical condition which was not brought on by an injury.

You can literally find the report that says the strokes came on as a direct result of the previous day.

It's not hidden in some black box, it's written in plain English
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Im not with the "pro-life" crown, but generally conservatives are far more charitable than liberals, and liberals are far more authoritarian and just want implement charity via force of the barrel of a government gun so they can make people dependent as a means to control them.
They absolutely are not. Not in the slightest.

They want you to think they are, but they simply are not. They don't believe in giving to the needy or poor and vehemently oppose the idea of it.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Modern day pro-abortion activists:

My body, my choice......but I want you to take the vaccine or we will all strip your life away and discriminate against your choice of what you want in your body.
The same thing vice versa, don't want to be told to take a vaccine but want the govt to control a women's body.

It's hypocritical from the other side.

If the anti vax crowd were really pro choice on what to do with their body, the same would extend to this. But nope. They only cared when it was THEM being told what to do, but have no issue with others being told what to do
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
If people actually cared about human life, they wouldn't support invading the Middle East. They would allow migrants into their country who come from hard living conditions. They would be begging to extend welfare to struggling people.

But what do we see instead?

People don't have compassion for children. The pro life crowd absolutely do not give a **** about children. They don't give a **** about anyone but themselves.

If they did, why do they fight so hard to make life miserable for everyone else?
I don’t understand how you know what the government does with our money and simultaneously want to give them more because this time they will do the right thing.

If everyone who believed it was civic duty or morally correct to give more money crowd funded and didn’t use a middle man aka the corrupt government their would be real change. Look how much BLM raised in one year. You could see real change in many lives.

Putting your morals at the barrel of a government gun just seems like a contradiction.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
You do know that people know this, right? Of course there's a line lol

I mean, there IS a balance already. Some argued for late term abortions but that's not what is being argued now.
I always see reasonable people like yourself not notice how the Overton window is shifting. There was bound to be blow back. Just like in the 90’s when the religious right went too far for too long. Did they actual stop metal music, video games, drug use, basically everything that offended them? No they all becomes more prolific.

For someone like me who hates the federal government I find it amusing that both sides want to force their world view on a massive diverse population and act shocked when it makes the country worse.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You do know that people know this, right? Of course there's a line lol

I mean, there IS a balance already. Some argued for late term abortions but that's not what is being argued now.
Being what we know now, wouldnt the pro-abortion activists make a better case for themselves if they made it clear they want to protect a woman's right to abortion up to 22 weeks and make a case, draw a line as to what developed life is and isnt? All I hear is alot of shouting from that side and no real balance of what is reasonable and not-reasonable. Also, from the pro-life side, maybe the better route for the Supreme Court would have been to look at the science and simply draw that line, and they we just need to make it clear to women of society what that line is, and they have plenty of time to decide....and of course, if there is a medical emergency or severe deformity detected we can certainly work exemptions. The pro-life side should also avoid extremities and be more reasonable, although Im sure its a mix group of what people really think the line should be.

Unfortunately, our political system generally doesnt abide by common sense solutions so thats that.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I always see reasonable people like yourself not notice how the Overton window is shifting. There was bound to be blow back. Just like in the 90’s when the religious right went too far for too long. Did they actual stop metal music, video games, drug use, basically everything that offended them? No they all becomes more prolific.

For someone like me who hates the federal government I find it amusing that both sides want to force their world view on a massive diverse population and act shocked when it makes the country worse.
Haha yeah that's fair. FWIW l as the usual saying goes, the answer is never black and white.
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Being what we know now, wouldnt the pro-abortion activists make a better case for themselves if they made it clear they want to protect a woman's right to abortion up to 22 weeks and make a case, draw a line as to what developed life is and isnt? All I hear is alot of shouting from that side and no real balance of what is reasonable and not-reasonable. Also, from the pro-life side, maybe the better route for the Supreme Court would have been to look at the science and simply draw that line, and they we just need to make it clear to women of society what that line is, and they have plenty of time to decide....and of course, if there is a medical emergency or severe deformity detected we can certainly work exemptions. The pro-life side should also avoid extremities and be more reasonable, although Im sure its a mix group of what people really think the line should be.

Unfortunately, our political system generally doesnt abide by common sense solutions so thats that.
Definitely.

For the record, as you know there are absolutely people who will 'abuse' any system. Think of it this way, the pro-2a crowd KNOW mass shootings are an issue, but their argument is whether making it tougher to own a firearm is the solution. After-all, why should a few bad apples spoil the bunch right?

So why can't the same logic apply here? No woman should be forced to have a baby to their rapist, or at 14 or 15 years old etc.

There are people out there that have almost no control over their lives - maybe they're addicts or mentally unstable, and so forcing them to have a child when they can't even care for themselves is absolutely retarded, for lack of a better term.

Children can develop addictions in utero from their mothers addictions, they can develop mental disorders from their mothers consuming alcohol while pregnant and so on.

But yet the argument is always "people just use it as a form of contraception" when that's not the reality. Birth control measures can fail, so why punish people actually trying? Children are getting pregnant who will now be forced to grow up before they're ready. A child cannot raise a child.

And look at the stats on child trafficking. The US is one of the most active child trafficking countries in the world, and now more 'unwanted' children are going to end up in that life. There is no doubt in my mind that the powerful people involved in overturning Roe vs Wade are also involved in child trafficking. Not all of them, but you know damn well some are. The Jeffrey Epstein's of this world are frothing at the mouth right now and it is disgusting.

This is absolutely going to destroy more lives than it saves, and that's a reality
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I am not doubting you but my stance does not come from religion…it’s from being a father and seeing 3D ultrasounds of my kids. At that point they were babies. People want to kill them at that point on a whim does seem disturbing to me personally.

I just reject modernity and find no surprise the amount of depression, anxiety, obesity, low t, low birth rates, low standards, crime rising, suicides rising, drug addiction, etc, we see today. I do not think any law would fix that. Why would I trust the government to fix anything?
I 100% understand, but you're looking at this through the lens of a loving father.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Definitely.

For the record, as you know there are absolutely people who will 'abuse' any system. Think of it this way, the pro-2a crowd KNOW mass shootings are an issue, but their argument is whether making it tougher to own a firearm is the solution. After-all, why should a few bad apples spoil the bunch right?

So why can't the same logic apply here? No woman should be forced to have a baby to their rapist, or at 14 or 15 years old etc.

There are people out there that have almost no control over their lives - maybe they're addicts or mentally unstable, and so forcing them to have a child when they can't even care for themselves is absolutely retarded, for lack of a better term.

Children can develop addictions in utero from their mothers addictions, they can develop mental disorders from their mothers consuming alcohol while pregnant and so on.

But yet the argument is always "people just use it as a form of contraception" when that's not the reality. Birth control measures can fail, so why punish people actually trying? Children are getting pregnant who will now be forced to grow up before they're ready. A child cannot raise a child.

And look at the stats on child trafficking. The US is one of the most active child trafficking countries in the world, and now more 'unwanted' children are going to end up in that life. There is no doubt in my mind that the powerful people involved in overturning Roe vs Wade are also involved in child trafficking. Not all of them, but you know damn well some are. The Jeffrey Epstein's of this world are frothing at the mouth right now and it is disgusting.

This is absolutely going to destroy more lives than it saves, and that's a reality
Well you make some fair points to consider.

Ok so how about, if your druggie, mentally unstable, smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or your irresponsible and poor and you need an abortion you get your 1 shot at it but you also have to have your tubes tied? This way we dont have people making the same mistake twice and kill another human down the road?
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Well you make some fair points to consider.

Ok so how about, if your druggie, mentally unstable, smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or your irresponsible and poor and you need an abortion you get your 1 shot at it but you also have to have your tubes tied? This way we dont have people making the same mistake twice and kill another human down the road?
The issue with getting tubes tied is that reversal is not guaranteed. If people turn their lives around, they should be allowed to decide to have a baby when the timing works for them.

If it were then I'd be all for it, just as I'd be all for vasectomies until discussion with a doctor, but then that also opens up huge issues.

The answer isn't simple, but simply forcing unwanted pregnancy is not the solution.

If the system worked as intended, if every unwanted child found a loving home and had the chance at a relatively normal life, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the system doesn't work as it should. Some children end up in amazing foster homes with amazing parents but some never do. An estimated 20,000 children every year never find a home in their 18 years of looking.

Plenty of foster children require years of intensive supervision and care. They've all suffered through some form of trauma

My parents wanted to foster children when I was younger, but one of the rules was that neither I or my Dad couldn't be left home alone with them. And the reason was is that some kids are coached by their parents who have had their children taken away to say that their foster parents touch them in the hopes they can be returned to the family.

It's absolutely crazy
 
Last edited:
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The issue with getting tubes tied is that reversal is not guaranteed. If people turn their lives around, they should be allowed to decide to have a baby when the timing works for them.

If it were then I'd be all for it, just as I'd be all for vasectomies until discussion with a doctor, but then that also opens up huge issues.

The answer isn't simple, but simply forcing unwanted pregnancy is not the solution.

If the system worked as intended, if every unwanted child found a loving home and had the chance at a relatively normal life, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the system doesn't work as it should. Some children end up in amazing foster homes with amazing parents but some never do. An estimated 20,000 children every year never find a home in their 18 years of looking.

Plenty of foster children require years of intensive supervision and care. They've all suffered through some form of trauma

My parents wanted to foster children when I was younger, but one of the rules was that neither I or my Dad couldn't be left home alone with them. And the reason was is that some kids are coached by their parents who have had their children taken away to say that their foster parents touch them in the hopes they can be returned to the family.

It's absolutely crazy
Why do women need more than 22 weeks to decide to get an abortion? What can we do to persuade women not to take it too far?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
My parents wanted to foster children when I was younger, but one of the rules was that neither I or my Dad couldn't be left home alone with them. And the reason was is that some kids are coached by their parents who have had their children taken away to say that their foster parents touch them in the hopes they can be returned to the family.

It's absolutely crazy
You mean that was the government regulation to allow parents to foster children? WTF????
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You can literally find the report that says the strokes came on as a direct result of the previous day.

It's not hidden in some black box, it's written in plain English
Being that if a police officer is of risk of being murdered simply over some stress, wouldnt that justify a police officer using lethal force on civilians if they give them a hard time? That would totally justify the murder of George Floyd, wouldnt it? What if Derek Chauvin dealed with more of his crap and had a stroke the next day from the mental trauma he faced the previous day or some other underlying disease came to fruition if George hurt his feelings?

Im not being serious on this one but sorta trying to bring a point.
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Why do women need more than 22 weeks to decide to get an abortion? What can we do to persuade women not to take it too far?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Who said they even got 22 weeks? I'm definitely not arguing for late term abortions here, not in the slightest. At that point they're a child in my eyes.

This isn't about late term abortions, this is about all abortions full stop. Most don't find out till post 6 weeks because at that point you're only 2 weeks late for your period which happens all the time. 6 weeks is when an electrical pulse is heard (often referred to as a heart beat but it is worth noting no heart has formed)
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
You mean that was the government regulation to allow parents to foster children? WTF????
It was the policy of the organization because good foster parents had been screwed over by foster children acting under the coaching of their paternal parents.

The rules were to protect foster parents
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Being that if a police officer is of risk of being murdered simply over some stress, wouldnt that justify a police officer using lethal force on civilians if they give them a hard time? That would totally justify the murder of George Floyd, wouldnt it? What if Derek Chauvin dealed with more of his crap and had a stroke the next day from the mental trauma he faced the previous day or some other underlying disease came to fruition if George hurt his feelings?

Im not being serious on this one but sorta trying to bring a point.
It's a good point for sure. I guess it's part of the job.

If I jump scare a dude with a heart condition and they die, am I liable? Kinda curious now
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Who said they even got 22 weeks?

This isn't about late term abortions, this is about all abortions fill stop
Forget I said that, Im not even sure or knowledgeable as to what the standard is here in the USA.

On another note, I do know that one state rolled it back to only 15 weeks which seems a bit on the extreme side which is why I think if it was possible that the Supreme Court should have simply added a regulation rather than a straight repeal, or at least replaced the Roe vs. Wade decision. Not sure if they work like that though.

It was the policy of the organization because good foster parents had been screwed over by foster children acting under the coaching of their paternal parents.

The rules were to protect foster parents
Sounds dumb and a way to incentivize kids from being taken in....surely there needs to be another way.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
It's a good point for sure. I guess it's part of the job.

If I jump scare a dude with a heart condition and they die, am I liable? Kinda curious now
I can guess that depends on how good of a lawyer the family can afford in combination of luck of the draw of the jury....sad but true, thats how often things work around here in the States. OJ is still free!
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Ohb
Forget I said that, Im not even sure or knowledgeable as to what the standard is here in the USA.

On another note, I do know that one state rolled it back to only 15 weeks which seems a bit on the extreme side which is why I think if it was possible that the Supreme Court should have simply added a regulation rather than a straight repeal, or at least replaced the Roe vs. Wade decision.



Sounds dumb and a way to incentivize kids from being taken in....surely there needs to be another way.
Oh yeah, I would assume around 6-7 weeks is when many people find out. I've heard of people dropping a baby without even realising they're pregnant which is crazy
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
I can guess that depends on how good of a lawyer the family can afford in combination of luck of the draw of the jury....sad but true, thats how often things work around here in the States. OJ is still free!
Haha that's true. Probably not criminally liable unless I knew of the heart condition, but probably liable for civil damages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
I 100% understand, but you're looking at this through the lens of a loving father.
That said with daughters I could see a couple scenarios where I would be okay with my daughters having one…I hope they never come.

I also say that not as like I would stop loving them or force them, I just wouldn’t support it as like a spur of the moment I don’t feel like being a grown up.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
This is how they wanna fuq law abiding citizens and further weaken good people for defending themselves.

“Other businesses would have to explicitly say they allow guns in their property”

Wow! So unless it’s posted you can’t go anywhere with a pistol! WTF?????!!

So basically you can carry but as long as you have nowhere to go. Or lock your gun inside your car every time you need to go inside of a place that doesn’t post “guns welcome?”

Now after the Supreme Court ruling law abiding citizens are more fuqqed than ever in NY.

This would make the Buffalo shooter have it easier than ever to shoot up a supermarket.

Plus mandatory 15-20 hours training for new permit holders, which isn’t the worst thing on the planet….and what does more extensive background checks mean?

IMG_3653.JPG

IMG_3654.JPG
 
Last edited:
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Criminal with illegal handgun walks to store, doesnt see sign a sign that says "guns welcome".......tells friend, dduuhhhh, I dont think Im allowed in here, we will have to rob another store....friend says "dum duh....ok lets find another one to rob duh duh"

Fukking liberalism is a mental disease, put it in the D.S.R. or the entire psychiatry community as a whole would be just about completely illegitimate. And I do wonder how many Republicrats will go along with this crap in NY, they borderline about to make the book too.
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Criminal with illegal handgun walks to store, doesnt see sign a sign that says "guns welcome".......tells friend, dduuhhhh, I dont think Im allowed in here, we will have to rob another store....friend says "dum duh....ok lets find another one to rob duh duh"

Fukking liberalism is a mental disease, put it in the D.S.R. or the entire psychiatry community as a whole would be just about completely illegitimate. And I do wonder how many Republicrats will go along with this crap in NY, they borderline about to make the book too.
I ponder whether this is the natural outgrowth of liberalism or if it should not be called liberalism. When I read Mises and Hayek championing liberalism it sounded pretty good. It’s confusing…probably not important as definitions don’t matter anymore, but I think about it when I see the word.
 
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
Criminal with illegal handgun walks to store, doesnt see sign a sign that says "guns welcome".......tells friend, dduuhhhh, I dont think Im allowed in here, we will have to rob another store....friend says "dum duh....ok lets find another one to rob duh duh"

Fukking liberalism is a mental disease, put it in the D.S.R. or the entire psychiatry community as a whole would be just about completely illegitimate. And I do wonder how many Republicrats will go along with this crap in NY, they borderline about to make the book too.
Yeah, it's definitely a mental disease to not want children continuously murdered in schools.

Fukking liberals.

But in all honesty, outside the US mass shootings don't occur nearly as frequently. This is obvious. But obviously for some, the right to have a firearm is more important than WHO has that firearm
 
Last edited:
Jiigzz

Jiigzz

Legend
Awards
5
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • First Up Vote
That said with daughters I could see a couple scenarios where I would be okay with my daughters having one…I hope they never come.

I also say that not as like I would stop loving them or force them, I just wouldn’t support it as like a spur of the moment I don’t feel like being a grown up.
Yeah, that makes sense for sure. It's such a highly charged moral debate it's easy to see both sides, but also easy to become easily distracted by the extremes of both sides.

Obviously this is hot global news right now, and I watched a segment on a right leaning news media (I'll try find it) where they had girls with barely any clothes "twerking for abortion". Obviously if you show that as being what this is all about it's going to trigger alot of backlash, and that's exactly what those media sources want. They don't show the rape victims because that's not as controversial. They purposefully show the far end of the spectrum as a means of keeping people divided and unwilling to see that there is legitimate reasons for something.

You can make the same argument about anything, but I saw that and instantly new what they're trying to do
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I ponder whether this is the natural outgrowth of liberalism or if it should not be called liberalism. When I read Mises and Hayek championing liberalism it sounded pretty good. It’s confusing…probably not important as definitions don’t matter anymore, but I think about it when I see the word.
People generally go with old terms and have them hijacked re-inventing the definition. Thomas Jefferson probably would be considered a liberal, but he was for sure shyt all over these modern day libtards.
 
Last edited:
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yeah, it's definitely a mental disease to not want children continuously murdered in schools.

Fukking liberals.

But in all honesty, outside the US mass shootings don't occur nearly as frequently. This is obvious. But obviously for some, the right to have a firearm is more important than WHO has that firearm
All these mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

If I ran this country public schools, teachers, staff, custodians would be so jacked with firearms that it would be the last place on earth a mass murderer would want to go to get their fix in. On top of that I would make firearm mandatory for elementary school children and change the culture and stop people from growing up as puzzies drugged on puberty blockers ( the last being unless there is a extreme rare medical condition,) and Im not kidding if we are going with the "government run" school route.
 
Last edited:
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
Yeah, that makes sense for sure. It's such a highly charged moral debate it's easy to see both sides, but also easy to become easily distracted by the extremes of both sides.

Obviously this is hot global news right now, and I watched a segment on a right leaning news media (I'll try find it) where they had girls with barely any clothes "twerking for abortion". Obviously if you show that as being what this is all about it's going to trigger alot of backlash, and that's exactly what those media sources want. They don't show the rape victims because that's not as controversial. They purposefully show the far end of the spectrum as a means of keeping people divided and unwilling to see that there is legitimate reasons for something.

You can make the same argument about anything, but I saw that and instantly new what they're trying to do
All corporate media focuses on the oppositions fringes. I honestly think it’s the worst place to get news. Especially geopolitical news. You would think being lied into wars for over a hundred years would lower public trust…maybe it has to a degree.

As Michael Malice says I would like corporate media to be looked at the same way a tobacco executives are looked at. Something to that effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ax1
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
But in all honesty, outside the US mass shootings don't occur nearly as frequently. This is obvious. But obviously for some, the right to have a firearm is more important than WHO has that firearm
Ok let me get back centered and away from my rants.

Here in New York (and other states) all they are doing is harassing law abiding citizens who go through background checks and making it impossible to go anywhere with the new proposed laws. None of these laws will stop of nazi terrorist from going into a school and killing children again, none of it. There are so many guns flooded here in America its not difficult to get it off the black market, and its also not difficult to make some pressure cooker bombs and mass murderer children alternatively....or do it China style and chop little school children up with machetes.

The problem here in America is a cultural problem, all these "mass shootings" (most of the mass shooting accounted for arent even mass shootings) are public suicides. People are sick, our youth is sick, there is no direction, no hope, too many pills prescribed by doctors without fixing the core issues, too many economic imbalances created by anti-capatalist corporate run anti-middle class government run by demicans and republitars, lockdowns have fuqqed up our kids, social media has destroyed real human interaction and social skils, etc, etc, etc......

Anyways this is a complex issue and they harass millions and million of good people in this country with solutions that dont solve any problems and make them worse so alot of us are for sure mad with what they are trying to pull off here, which is more harassment of 10s of millions of people and making criminals more powerful by the day.

Was that another rant? LOL!
 
rob112

rob112

Well-known member
Awards
4
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • Best Answer
People generally go with old terms and have them hijacked re-inventing the definition. Thomas Jefferson probably would be considered a liberal, but he was for sure shyt all over these modern day libtards.
Yea I mean liberalism is an ideology formed out of individual liberty and restricted government. I don’t think that at all defines todays liberals. I feel Democratic socialist is much closer to what they are.

Oddly enough Orwell was a democratic socialist yet the way he went at communism he would probably be far right today. Terms are stupid today.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Yea I mean liberalism is an ideology formed out of individual liberty and restricted government. I don’t think that at all defines todays liberals. I feel Democratic socialist is much closer to what they are.

Oddly enough Orwell was a democratic socialist yet the way he went at communism he would probably be far right today. Terms are stupid today.
I dunno what the hell they are, I just see a bunch of power hungry rich corporate military industrial complex corrupt polititions who are all wolf hiding in sheeps skin and run traditional Chairman Mao style psychops to brainwash and control the masses mostly through means of mainstream corporate media and creating class warfare divisions so they are distracted away from the real causes of the issues which is all the shot callers they vote in charge.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Now California (yeah sure, lets ban law abiding church goers from bringing their protection to church! That will stop terrorists!)

CA overreacts to Bruen by screwing over permit holders in the state

SB 918 passed the Assembly Committee on Public Safety today. It does a lot of things, like remove the good cause requirement and increase ammunition background check cost from $1 to $19.

It also says permit holders cannot carry in the following places:
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a pre-school or child care facility.
  • A building, parking area, or portion of a building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of the state government, courts, or local governments, unless the firearm is being carried for purposes of training pursuant.to existing law.
  • A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, nursing home, medical office, urgent care facility, or other place at which medical services are customarily provided.
  • A bus, train, or other form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a transportation authority supported in whole or in part with public funds.
  • A building, real property, and parking area under the control of a vendor or an establishment where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises.
  • A public gathering or special event conducted on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from a federal, state, or local government and sidewalk or street immediately adjacent to the public gathering or special event but is not more than 1,000 feet from the event or gathering, provided this prohibition does not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
  • A playground or public or private youth center and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to the playground or youth center.
  • A park, athletic area, or athletic facility that is open to the public and a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to those areas, provided this prohibition does not apply to a licensee who must walk through such a place in order to access their residence, place of business, or vehicle.
  • Real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, except those areas designated for hunting, or any other designated public hunting area, public shooting ground, or building where firearm possession is permitted by applicable law.
  • Any area under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university, including, but not limited to, buildings, classrooms, laboratories, medical clinics, hospitals, artistic venues, athletic fields or venues, entertainment venues, officially recognized university-related organization properties, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas.
  • A building, real property, or parking area that is or would be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever, including, but not limited to, casinos, gambling establishments, gaming clubs, bingo operations, facilities licensed by the California Horse Racing Board, or a facility wherein banked or percentage games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than the California State Lottery, are or will be played.
  • A stadium, arena, or the real property or parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or a collegiate or professional sporting or eSporting event.
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public library.
  • A building, real property, or parking area under the control of an amusement park.
  • A church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship, including in any parking area immediately adjacent thereto, unless the operator of the place of worship clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of a building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property.
  • A financial institution or parking area under the control of a financial institution.
  • Any other privately-owned commercial establishment that is open to the public, unless the operator of the establishment clearly and conspicuously posts a sign at the entrance of a building or on the premises indicating that license holders are permitted to carry firearms on the property, as specified,
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Full list of Californian Gun concealed carry permit holders including celebrities, judges and victims of domestic violence. Phones and addresses included.

Released by the state Attorney Generals office…claim accident, and I for sure doubt that.

 

Top