Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

[Seran]

So you believe late term abortions are wrong?

You know, if you were the type of person who'd asked others hypothetical questions to spur a genuine discussing or asked someone to plays devil's advocated, people would answer you more often.

What drauz and others have realized is you and a handful of others ask rhetorical or nonsensical questions in order to open up another point of attack or ridicule. You got your answer, a late term abortion is genuinely viable after the sixth month, but for whatever reason you feel it's necessary to drive off everyone else from the discussion as if a dead topic is some personal win.

[Parkbandit]

Ones a crime, the other is not. One is morally reprehensible to society, the other only to a small minority. They don't equal, your comparisons. You're trying to ask me to compare the taste of apples to the color blue and not understanding the difference

Which one is not a crime? Stabbing a woman in the womb, killing her and the fetus.. or stabbing a woman in the womb and killing the fetus but the woman lives?

[Neveragain]

Ones a crime, the other is not. One is morally reprehensible to society, the other only to a small minority. They don't equal, your comparisons. You're trying to ask me to compare the taste of apples to the color blue and not understanding the difference

According to polls, 49% of americans consider themselves to be pro-life....

So much for your "small minority"

[Seran]

So, once that cluster of cells is viable outside the womb, then the "It's the woman's choice what to do with her body" logic is completely discarded like a 3 week fetus and now you want to protect the non-person that is literally sucking the life away from this poor, poor woman?

What determines "viability" outside the womb?

That's a genuinely good question.

[Seran]

According to polls, 49% of americans consider themselves to be pro-life....

So much for your "small minority"

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

39% believe it should be illegal, 59% believe it should be legal. Where's your source and link? This poll was in 2021 and I bet the numbers are higher for pro choice now that the right might be taken away in some red states.

[Seran]

Which one is not a crime? Stabbing a woman in the womb, killing her and the fetus.. or stabbing a woman in the womb and killing the fetus but the woman lives?

That's hyperbole.

[Tgo01]

Wow. Seran is even more big mad than usual.

[Methais]

drauz questions

I think he gave his answer here:


No one, they aren't a person. They aren't granted life or liberty, like the woman is supposed to have, according to current law.

Though I'm not personally convinced past like 16-20 weeks.



Seran being big mad again

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AdorableActiveHawk-size_restricted.gif

[Shaps]

It's funny to me - Leftist "icon" says essentially the same thing as more Conservative Judges, but somehow they're evil, and she is a caring and compassionate person.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

"Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade"

Current argument is on the legal basis of the case itself. Even RBG thought it wasn't strong. You'd think the "Left" would listen to (what was 2 years ago) their "saint".

Oh wait... logic doesn't matter. I forgot, silly me.

[Methais]

It's funny to me - Leftist "icon" says essentially the same thing as more Conservative Judges, but somehow they're evil, and she is a caring and compassionate person.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

"Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade"

Current argument is on the legal basis of the case itself. Even RBG thought it wasn't strong. You'd think the "Left" would listen to (what was 2 years ago) their "saint".

Oh wait... logic doesn't matter. I forgot, silly me.

You can find the same shit on almost any "man on the street" segment where someone will throw out an Obama quote or whatever to some lefty but tell them that Trump said it (or vice versa) and watch them squirm in real time after they give their opinion and are then informed it was "the other guy" that said it.

i.e.

"Did you know that Trump said all Mexicans suck and that they should go back to Africa?"

"YEAH! AND HE'S A HUGE RACIST FOR THAT!!!!!"

"Yeah. That was actually Obama who said it, not Trump."

"Oh. Well I'm sure he had a valid reason for saying that and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope and words and cope blah blah blah but that doesn't make him racist! But Trump, he's sooooooooooooo racist!!!"

Note for Seran: This is an entirely made up scenario that didn't happen, before you ACKCHYUALLY about how Mexicans don't come from Africa or some shit.

[Parkbandit]

You know, if you were the type of person who'd asked others hypothetical questions to spur a genuine discussing or asked someone to plays devil's advocated, people would answer you more often.


Add "hypothetical question" to the very long list of things you are clueless about.

SPOILER: His question was not hypothetical.

[Parkbandit]

That's hyperbole.

No. It's not.

[Methais]

No. It's not.

IT'S HYPERBOTHETICAL YOU BIGOT!!!!!!!!

[Neveragain]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

39% believe it should be illegal, 59% believe it should be legal. Where's your source and link? This poll was in 2021 and I bet the numbers are higher for pro choice now that the right might be taken away in some red states.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The small minority you're thinking of is the LGBTQRFDAXCV people.

Not sure if I should mention that 70% of Americans identify as Christian with your current anger and hatred towards religion. The alt-left has been nothing but a plague for Democrats.

[Seran]

It's funny to me - Leftist "icon" says essentially the same thing as more Conservative Judges, but somehow they're evil, and she is a caring and compassionate person.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html

"Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade"

Current argument is on the legal basis of the case itself. Even RBG thought it wasn't strong. You'd think the "Left" would listen to (what was 2 years ago) their "saint".

Oh wait... logic doesn't matter. I forgot, silly me.


The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t really fond of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. She didn’t like how it was structured.

The ruling, she noted in a lecture at New York University in 1992, tried to do too much, too fast — it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop — leaving it open to fierce attacks.

“Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped,” she said, “may prove unstable.”

It was because of her early criticism of one of the most consequential rulings for American women that some feminist activists were initially suspicious of her when President Bill Clinton nominated her for the Supreme Court in 1993, worried that she wouldn’t protect the decision.

Of course, they eventually realized that Justice Ginsburg’s skepticism of Roe v. Wade wasn’t driven by a disapproval of abortion access at all, but by her wholehearted commitment to it.

The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said.'

It's not that you're a liar Shaps, it's that you don't bother to read the source material and instead rely on buzzfeed to make you think something supports your argument. When in reality it destroys your POV.

[Seran]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The small minority you're thinking of is the LGBTQRFDAXCV people.

Not sure if I should mention that 70% of Americans identify as Christian with your current anger and hatred towards religion. The alt-left has been nothing but a plague for Democrats.

Roughly the same time period, but let us look at the numbers you cite. 32% support total legality, while 48% support legal only under certain circumstances -- a total of 80% who support the right to an abortion. While only 19% indicate it should be illegal under any circumstances. Essentially -- Texas. Thanks for supporting my argument!

[Seran]

For the record and I'm sure maybe only a few people give any fucks, "Legal under most circumstances" is where my indicator would lie.

[Suppressed Poet]

So I believe, as science does, that life begins at conception. That being said, I realize abortion is a complex issue. Morally I’m staunchly opposed to it, but the libertarian in me somewhat recognizes the topic is politically multifaceted.

Could liberals and conservatives perhaps compromise to agree abortions should not be legal after 24 weeks? The reason I pick 24 weeks is that’s the point the fetus can be delivered and stands a probable chance of surviving on their own. It stands to reason that a woman would have plenty of opportunity to make a poor judgment murderous decision up to that point.

[Neveragain]

Roughly the same time period, but let us look at the numbers you cite. 32% support total legality, while 48% support legal only under certain circumstances -- a total of 80% who support the right to an abortion. While only 19% indicate it should be illegal under any circumstances. Essentially -- Texas. Thanks for supporting my argument!

That's not a small minority. Your 80% is bullshit when "under certain circumstances" = roughly 1% of all abortions.

The vast majority of Americans view abortion as a form of birth control as repugnant.

[Seran]

So I believe, as science does, that life begins at conception. That being said, I realize abortion is a complex issue. Morally I’m staunchly opposed to it, but the libertarian in me somewhat recognizes the topic is politically multifaceted.

Could liberals and conservatives perhaps compromise to agree abortions should not be legal after 24 weeks? The reason I pick 24 weeks is that’s the point the fetus can be delivered and stands a probable chance of surviving on their own. It stands to reason that a woman would have plenty of opportunity to make a poor judgment murderous decision up to that point.

I believe 21 weeks was the 'arbitrary' number a couple of us had discussed in the other thread to make the murderous decision as you put it. But I believe an exception has to be made for medically necessary abortions at a later time, one hinging on either the serious illness/death of the mother. Mandatory amniocentesis could also help a great deal in ensuring infants who will die in their infancy shouldn't have to suffer.

[Neveragain]

The reason I pick 24 weeks is that’s the point the fetus can be delivered and stands a probable chance of surviving on their own.

That's not acceptable as technology advances that time period becomes less and less. 20 weeks is now considered "viable" outside the womb.

We would be revisiting the law every 5-10 years.

[Seran]

That's not a small minority. Your 80% is bullshit when "under certain circumstances" = roughly 1% of all abortions.

The vast majority of Americans view abortion as a form of birth control as repugnant.

Please, split some more hairs and make some more equivocations. But of those numbers, 48%, 32% and 19%, which is less than a fifth of the sum? Oh yes, THE SMALL MINORITY of 19%.

[Tgo01]

I believe 21 weeks was the 'arbitrary' number a couple of us had discussed in the other thread

LOL! "Arbitrary" huh? Don't wanna define the "clump of cells" as a human being at that time, or that the "clump of cells" could survive outside the womb at that point.

NOPE! 21 weeks is just the "arbitrary" number you guys made up. I wonder why drauz just didn't go this route? I guess he can learn something from a ghoulish, racist, backwards fuckface such as yourself.

[Suppressed Poet]

That's not acceptable as technology advances that time period becomes less and less. 20 weeks is now considered "viable" outside the womb.

We would be revisiting the law every 5-10 years.

Ok…maybe it’s earlier than 24 weeks. I’m not completely set on that number, but I mean it to be that the baby stands a reasonable odds of survival without intensive life support (like breathing help). I doubt either side of the political spectrum would be totally satisfied, but you get the idea.

[Suppressed Poet]

I believe 21 weeks was the 'arbitrary' number a couple of us had discussed in the other thread to make the murderous decision as you put it. But I believe an exception has to be made for medically necessary abortions at a later time, one hinging on either the serious illness/death of the mother. Mandatory amniocentesis could also help a great deal in ensuring infants who will die in their infancy shouldn't have to suffer.

We’re getting somewhere but why make mandatory amniocentesis? People can decide that on their own if they want that or not, just as they can decide to go through with a pregnancy or not to a baby that will have Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome are still people. I know a couple parents of Down syndrome children, and both have told me how much joy it has brought to their lives despite the hardship.

Edit: Or even other diseases likely to bring death to a child in infancy…I still think it’s the parent’s decision to test and/or decide that for themselves. Why make that mandatory?

Last: I could compromise to allow an abortion after 24 weeks or whatever number if a doctor deems it medically necessary for the survival of the mother. Those details would have to be worked out, but sure.

[Neveragain]

Ok…maybe it’s earlier than 24 weeks. I’m not completely set on that number, but I mean it to be that the baby stands a reasonable odds of survival without intensive life support (like breathing help). I doubt either side of the political spectrum would be totally satisfied, but you get the idea.

I would settle at when brain development starts, 6 weeks.

[Neveragain]

We’re getting somewhere but why make mandatory amniocentesis? People can decide that on their own if they want that or not, just as they can decide to go through with a pregnancy or not to a baby that will have Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome are still people. I know a couple parents of Down syndrome children, and both have told me how much joy it has brought to their lives despite the hardship.

Edit: Or even other diseases likely to bring death to a child in infancy…I still think it’s the parent’s decision to test and/or decide that for themselves. Why make that mandatory?

Last: I could compromise to allow an abortion after 24 weeks or whatever number if a doctor deems it medically necessary for the survival of the mother. Those details would have to be worked out, but sure.

I've never met someone with Downs that isn't almost always happy.

[Suppressed Poet]

I would settle at when brain development starts, 6 weeks.

That’s logical. But playing devils advocate here, and hopefully you understand that I too am morally & personally opposed to abortion… A lot of mothers may not realize they are pregnant within that time, or at least be pretty close to the end of that time period. You can’t even get a sonogram by then. If a mother finds out let say week 4-5, that gives them little time to make perhaps what could be the most important decision in their entire life.

[Neveragain]

Please, split some more hairs and make some more equivocations. But of those numbers, 48%, 32% and 19%, which is less than a fifth of the sum? Oh yes, THE SMALL MINORITY of 19%.

The only one splitting hairs here is you.

Amazing how the alt-left freaks, like yourself, want everyone to move mountains for 7% but when it comes to killing babies the "small minority" no longer matters.

[Neveragain]

the most important decision in their entire life.

That decision was made when both parties decided to participate in the action of making babies.

The idea that we should be waiting until our late 30's to have children is medical insanity.

[drauz]

Uh-oh! Looks like drauz realized he was about to get disowned by the Democrats for suggesting any sort of restrictions on abortion.

drauz: life begins when the baby can survive outside the womb.
Me: so late term abortions are wrong then since the baby can survive outside the womb at that point?
drauz: I’m right! You’re wrong! I’m outta here!

I'm not going to continue answering your questions if you won't answer mine.

What's so hard about saying your opinion?

[Tgo01]

I'm not going to continue answering your questions if you won't answer mine.

What's so hard about saying your opinion?

What questions did you have? I just saw you say some crazy things so I responded.

Here is my opinion in full: no one should have the right to end another person's life, unless that person has been deemed a danger to society after receiving a fair trial. The only exception I would make is if the mother's life is in danger, because no one should be forced to put their own life in danger to save another life. Also to note: there is almost no circumstance in which an abortion is needed to save the mother's life as opposed to delivering the baby early via a c-section or induced labor when the baby is at the point in which it can survive outside the womb, regardless of what pro-abortionists claim otherwise.

Feel free to ask any questions, I have nothing to hide.

[Suppressed Poet]

That decision was made when both parties decided to participate in the action of making babies.

The idea that we should be waiting until our late 30's to have children is medical insanity.

True on both statements, but…. Despite all of our medical marvels and such, a lot of unintentional pregnancies still happen. All of mine were that way, with my first born at 19 years old while I was in college. Having that child was the best thing that ever happened to me…getting married to mom wasn’t and we divorced several years later… Anyways I’m getting off subject, but point is that while yes someone that engages in the act of making babies should accept the risk, but nevertheless unwanted pregnancies do frequently happen. Some people don’t have our same value system or have poor risk management especially when they are young.

[drauz]

It is made of human cells, human DNA. What is it?

Depending on when specifically you are talking about it is an embryo or a fetus.

[drauz]

What questions did you have? I just saw you say some crazy things so I responded.

Here is my opinion in full: no one should have the right to end another person's life, unless that person has been deemed a danger to society after receiving a fair trial. The only exception I would make is if the mother's life is in danger, because no one should be forced to put their own life in danger to save another life. Also to note: there is almost no circumstance in which an abortion is needed to save the mother's life as opposed to delivering the baby early via a c-section or induced labor when the baby is at the point in which it can survive outside the womb, regardless of what pro-abortionists claim otherwise.

Feel free to ask any questions, I have nothing to hide.

What crazy thing did I say?

So you think an abortion at any point is wrong? You believe it starts at conception?

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq2Bs9UW-Qs

When you don't realize how lacking in principle you are. LOL

[Tgo01]

So you think an abortion at any point is wrong?

Yes. Again except for the health of the mother.


You believe it starts at conception?

That's what science says, so yes.

[Tgo01]

Here is my opinion in full: no one should have the right to end another person's life, unless that person has been deemed a danger to society after receiving a fair trial.

Before the "GOTCHA!" people jump in: of course people also have the right to defend themselves if they are in danger. You know what I mean!

[Parkbandit]

So you believe late term abortions are wrong?


Well this isn't going anywhere, so have fun with yourself.


What's so hard about saying your opinion?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/8c1iXtbmQPtyLbQ6iz/giphy.gif

[Methais]

So I believe, as science does, that life begins at conception. That being said, I realize abortion is a complex issue. Morally I’m staunchly opposed to it, but the libertarian in me somewhat recognizes the topic is politically multifaceted.

Could liberals and conservatives perhaps compromise to agree abortions should not be legal after 24 weeks? The reason I pick 24 weeks is that’s the point the fetus can be delivered and stands a probable chance of surviving on their own. It stands to reason that a woman would have plenty of opportunity to make a poor judgment murderous decision up to that point.

The thing with leftists is you could make abortion completely legal at any stage, with the only exception being partial birth abortion, and they'll still have 24/7 meltdowns over it because they didn't get their way 100%.

You can't please leftists no matter what you do, because you can't reason with the unreasonable. The sooner republicans realize this and abandon this "taking the high road" dumb fuckery, the better off we'll all be.

[Methais]

I've never met someone with Downs that isn't almost always happy.

Corky wasn't very happy on this day:


https://youtu.be/JVcbY3Tf_TE


Related:

https://www.relrules.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Sofia-Jirau-The-First-Victorias-Secret-Model-with-Downs-Syndrome-Makes-History.jpg

[Methais]

Having that child was the best thing that ever happened to me…getting married to mom wasn’t and we divorced several years later…

I hope you and your mom have been able to reconcile your differences since the divorce.

[drauz]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/8c1iXtbmQPtyLbQ6iz/giphy.gif

As always you come into a discussion halfway and pretend like the first half didn't happen. Fuck off.

[drauz]

Yes. Again except for the health of the mother.



That's what science says, so yes.

So plan B should be banned?

Nothing if the person was raped?

[Gelston]

I hope you and your mom have been able to reconcile your differences since the divorce.

rofl

[Gelston]

So plan B should be banned?

Nothing if the person was raped?

I'm actually 100% fine before viability. My wife doesn't like it, and she only says in cases of rape. We both agree if it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

[drauz]

I'm actually 100% fine before viability. We both agree if it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

This is my opinion as well.

[Shaps]

I'm actually 100% fine before viability. My wife doesn't like it, and she only says in cases of rape. We both agree if it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

This right here is why this whole Roe v. Wade situation, for the past 40+ years, is solely a political football to anger idiots during election cycles - just as race is used every election cycle, then forgot about by the politicians....

90% of the country thinks it would be a reasonable compromise to pass a law that allows abortions up to "viability". I define "viability" as the youngest child ever born, to survive - currently 21 weeks or there about. Past this date, abortions to save the mother's life.

Instead of just making a law, passing it in Congress, and settling this annoying as fuck political talking point, they don't do anything. Problem is, the Left will never allow it to be resolved - because again... they do not create, they only complain... and they need "problems" to exist, to incite the victim mentality in people, and retain power.

It's disgusting that it's done, and it's disgusting that people fall for it.

[Solkern]

I'm actually 100% fine before viability. My wife doesn't like it, and she only says in cases of rape. We both agree if it is a medical necessity to save the mother's life.

I’m regards to your wife, what happens if the mother has mental issues, doesn’t have a suitable job, in an abusive relationship, has a drug/drinking problem or is unfit to raise and care for a child? Should these be grounds for an abortion as well?

[Suppressed Poet]

I hope you and your mom have been able to reconcile your differences since the divorce.

Ha!

Yeah that could have been worded better… My ex-wife and I are very civil now and ever since we divorced.

[Suppressed Poet]

The thing with leftists is you could make abortion completely legal at any stage, with the only exception being partial birth abortion, and they'll still have 24/7 meltdowns over it because they didn't get their way 100%.

You can't please leftists no matter what you do, because you can't reason with the unreasonable. The sooner republicans realize this and abandon this "taking the high road" dumb fuckery, the better off we'll all be.

It does seem that way, doesn’t it? We have historically done that with gun control, and look where that brought us. It’s never enough.

The thing is though, in a democratic republic such as ours…for government to function correctly it requires compromise. Both parties be reasonable though. If that’s no longer possible we are all eff’d.

[Suppressed Poet]

I’m regards to your wife, what happens if the mother has mental issues, doesn’t have a suitable job, in an abusive relationship, has a drug/drinking problem or is unfit to raise and care for a child? Should these be grounds for an abortion as well?

I say no. That’s why we have child protective services. If the mother is truly unfit to care for a child, we have something in place today to address that.

[~Rocktar~]

Here is the first problem with the viability argument. If you become quadriplegic, can we murder you since you are not viable? What about in a coma, can we murder you then? Mentally deficient like an IQ of 30 or something, never going to be able to even stand or dress yourself alone, can we murder you then? The list goes on an on and it isn't pretty since, just like the stupid Leftist argument supporting pedophilia because it's the next step after sexualizing children, the argument is like-for-life reasoning. It's the slippery slope and like most of them, not an intellectual fact but indeed a social reality.

Next comes the fact that "viability" is different depending on science, location and situation. Viability is also subject to interpretation a strong legal definition can and will be attacked by both sides nearly endlessly.

[Seran]

This right here is why this whole Roe v. Wade situation, for the past 40+ years, is solely a political football to anger idiots during election cycles - just as race is used every election cycle, then forgot about by the politicians....

90% of the country thinks it would be a reasonable compromise to pass a law that allows abortions up to "viability". I define "viability" as the youngest child ever born, to survive - currently 21 weeks or there about. Past this date, abortions to save the mother's life.

Instead of just making a law, passing it in Congress, and settling this annoying as fuck political talking point, they don't do anything. Problem is, the Left will never allow it to be resolved - because again... they do not create, they only complain... and they need "problems" to exist, to incite the victim mentality in people, and retain power.

It's disgusting that it's done, and it's disgusting that people fall for it.

It's red states denying access to abortion. It's Republicans in Congress that have denied any legislation in Roe and if you think there was a warp speed push to codify it when it was thought to be bedrock, settled law, then you're mistaken.

Abortion rights bills are pending right now, wait to see Republicans from blocking any movement or compromise whatsoever.

[Seran]

We’re getting somewhere but why make mandatory amniocentesis? People can decide that on their own if they want that or not, just as they can decide to go through with a pregnancy or not to a baby that will have Down syndrome. People with Down syndrome are still people. I know a couple parents of Down syndrome children, and both have told me how much joy it has brought to their lives despite the hardship.

Edit: Or even other diseases likely to bring death to a child in infancy…I still think it’s the parent’s decision to test and/or decide that for themselves. Why make that mandatory?

Last: I could compromise to allow an abortion after 24 weeks or whatever number if a doctor deems it medically necessary for the survival of the mother. Those details would have to be worked out, but sure.

People birthed with any disease are still people, the purpose of an amnio is to give the parents the best chance of successfully raising a child with deformations or disease by preparing them well in advance. If they choose not to carry to term when informed, that is the power of the right to choose.

There have been two Downs babies born in my family, my niece and a cousin. My niece is doing wonderfully at age 16, my cousin unfortunately did not make it to her second year due to severe heart defects. Even knowing all our family does now, there's not a single one of us (myself included) who wouldn't fight someone for insinuating they should have been terminated. But that was my sister's choice and my aunts choice. No one else.

[Seran]

The only one splitting hairs here is you.

Amazing how the alt-left freaks, like yourself, want everyone to move mountains for 7% but when it comes to killing babies the "small minority" no longer matters.

People like you want to dictate the rights of an entire nation by the religious minority composing that 19%. No logic, no reason, just your flying spaghetti monster being misinterpreted causes you all to lose your minds trying to run everyone's lives. It's amazing how much Republicans now want to dictate everything from health, child bearing, education and military service. You've forgotten you Libertarian roots.

[Methais]

Here is the first problem with the viability argument. If you become quadriplegic, can we murder you since you are not viable? What about in a coma, can we murder you then? Mentally deficient like an IQ of 30 or something

Whoa slow down dude, there's no need to call out Seran personally...

[Methais]

People like you want to dictate the rights of an entire nation by the religious minority composing that 19%. No logic, no reason, just your flying spaghetti monster being misinterpreted causes you all to lose your minds trying to run everyone's lives. It's amazing how much Republicans now want to dictate everything from health, child bearing, education and military service. You've forgotten you Libertarian roots.

If only you have a shred of self awareness, you'd realize how hilariously ironic, and I mean that in the most retarded way possible, your post is.

[Neveragain]

No logic, no reason, just your flying spaghetti monster being misinterpreted causes you all to lose your minds trying to run everyone's lives. You've forgotten you Libertarian roots.

I'm not the one denying scientific fact.


You've forgotten you Libertarian roots.

The right to life should be the number one issue for every libertarian, without that right the rest of the rights don't matter.

Who's running whos life when they demand they should be able to murder the voiceless innocent?

[Neveragain]

To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms. ~ Mayor Lightfoot

https://www.icegif.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-dancing-icegif-5.gif

[Seran]

I'm not the one denying scientific fact.



The right to life should be the number one issue for every libertarian, without that right the rest of the rights don't matter.

Who's running whos life when they demand they should be able to murder the voiceless innocent?

No one is committing murder, beyond you against common sense and logic. I'm not entirely sure what part of the Bible your people deride your believe that judging the morality of others is anyone but God's, but I'm looking forward to the day the Republican party wakes up to the loss of the female vote and moderates.

[Parkbandit]

As always you come into a discussion halfway and pretend like the first half didn't happen. Fuck off.

As always, you get extremely upset over the dumbest things and dip out of a conversation when it gets too difficult or you are called out for being stupid.

He asked a simple question. You didn't want to answer it.

Then a mere 5 hours later, you come back (after dipping out) and tell him you aren't going to answer his question until he answers yours because it's not fair!

I don't blame you for your unstable emotional state.. I blame the election of 2016.. that's where it all went to hell for you.

But mean orange man not here now... you are safe.

[Gelston]

I’m regards to your wife, what happens if the mother has mental issues, doesn’t have a suitable job, in an abusive relationship, has a drug/drinking problem or is unfit to raise and care for a child? Should these be grounds for an abortion as well?

Imagine if those are the conditions after the child is born. Would you then murder that child? That is how she sees it. Adopt the child out.

[Seran]

Former darling of the ultra right and a MAGA figurehead Madison Cawthorn continues to take it in the chin. Campaign finance reports show he's spending campaign money on paying out his college reject buddies directly and through shell companies. This comes on top of the recent video of him face fucking the same dude he was being fondled by in bed. Really gotta hand it to the Right. They're so concerned about Bible thumping their way into office to end a woman's right to choose, all the while their most vocally religious members continue their active lifestyles referred to as heathen or damnable in the book they use to control others.

https://news.yahoo.com/inside-relentless-campaign-ruin-madison-084849483.html

[Parkbandit]

Former darling of the ultra right and a MAGA figurehead Madison Cawthorn continues to take it in the chin. Campaign finance reports show he's spending campaign money on paying out his college reject buddies directly and through shell companies. This comes on top of the recent video of him face fucking the same dude he was being fondled by in bed. Really gotta hand it to the Right. They're so concerned about Bible thumping their way into office to end a woman's right to choose, all the while their most vocally religious members continue their active lifestyles referred to as heathen or damnable in the book they use to control others.

https://news.yahoo.com/inside-relentless-campaign-ruin-madison-084849483.html

What a faggot, amirite Seran?

[Neveragain]

No one is committing murder, beyond you against common sense and logic. I'm not entirely sure what part of the Bible your people deride your believe that judging the morality of others is anyone but God's, but I'm looking forward to the day the Republican party wakes up to the loss of the female vote and moderates.

Looking forward to after November when Democrats only power is a lame duck, 80 year old, senile, rich, racist that's larping as a president.

[Methais]

Looking forward to after November when Democrats only power is a lame duck, 80 year old, senile, rich, racist that's larping as a president.

Seran is very upset about this.

[time4fun]

I'm not the one denying scientific fact.


I'm sorry- scientific fact?

The notion that life begins at conception is not a "scientific fact"- there's no consensus on that. There's not even a formal scientific "opinion" on the matter because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

What you are claiming as a fact is actually a belief. And a new one at that.

In the late 60s/early 70s Evangelical community came together at various points to talk about the issue and, for the most part, the belief was that life begins at birth. NOT conception. And that was based on scripture: (https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/)


In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: 'If a man kills any human life he will be put to death' (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”

The magazine Christian Life agreed, insisting, “The Bible definitely pinpoints a difference in the value of a fetus and an adult.” And the Southern Baptist Convention passed a 1971 resolution affirming abortion should be legal not only to protect the life of the mother, but to protect her emotional health as well.


The idea that life begins at conception is a political narrative that was started largely after the Roe v Wade decision to organize the religious right. So it's only been a "widespread" belief (and it's not even *that* widespread) for the past few decades.

It was never a scientific stance. And it's still not. It's an arbitrary belief people started to get conservative people out to vote for their political opponents.

And if you think I'm wrong, then please show us non-partisan, objective scientific literature that clearly demonstrates a consensus belief that life begins at conception. We'll wait.

[Gelston]

I'm sorry- scientific fact?

The notion that life begins at conception is not a "scientific fact"- there's no consensus on that. There's not even a formal scientific "opinion" on the matter because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

What you are claiming as a fact is actually a belief. And a new one at that.

In the late 60s/early 70s Evangelical community came together at various points to talk about the issue and, for the most part, the belief was that life begins at birth. NOT conception. And that was based on scripture: (https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/)

[/B]


The idea that life begins at conception is a political narrative that was started largely after the Roe v Wade decision to organize the religious right. So it's only been a "widespread" belief (and it's not even *that* widespread) for the past few decades.

It was never a scientific stance. And it's still not. It's an arbitrary belief people started to get people out to vote for their political opponents.

Your science allows you to say men can give birth.

Also, Hippocrates said life begins at fertilization. You know, top scientist/doctor guy in the 400s BC. So no, it isn't a new thing.

The Vedic literature, of the Hindi faith, also says life begins at conception. There is another thing that is a few thousand years old.

Saying it only became a thing after Roe v Wade is laughibly incorrect.

[Seran]

Your science allows you to say men can give birth.

Also, Hippocrates said life begins at fertilization. You know, top scientist/doctor guy in the 400s BC. So no, it isn't a new thing.

The Vedic literature, of the Hindi faith, also says life begins at conception. There is another thing that is a few thousand years old.

Saying it only became a thing after Roe v Wade is laughibly incorrect.

Bahaha did you really just posit that an opinion from a physician prior to the advent of the field of medicine is proof of when life begins? Wow, just wow. They were also saying the world was flat, underneath our feet was Hades and that the head of their pantheon created multiple species from banging animals, should we also be taking that as some sort of indisputable fact regarding procreation, planetology and geology?

[Gelston]

Bahaha did you really just posit that an opinion from a physician prior to the advent of the field of medicine is proof of when life begins? Wow, just wow. They were also saying the world was flat, underneath our feet was Hades and that the head of their pantheon created multiple species from banging animals, should we also be taking that as some sort of indisputable fact regarding procreation, planetology and geology?

She said the idea that life began at conception was a new belief and only began after Roe v Wade. It didn't. Stop being dense.

Also, no one really ever believed the Earth was flat, at least, not people with education.

Eratosthenes in the 200s BC calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 1.5% of its size.

[Neveragain]

I'm sorry- scientific fact?

The notion that life begins at conception is not a "scientific fact"- there's no consensus on that. There's not even a formal scientific "opinion" on the matter because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

What you are claiming as a fact is actually a belief. And a new one at that.

In the late 60s/early 70s Evangelical community came together at various points to talk about the issue and, for the most part, the belief was that life begins at birth. NOT conception. And that was based on scripture: (https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/)

[/B]


The idea that life begins at conception is a political narrative that was started largely after the Roe v Wade decision to organize the religious right. So it's only been a "widespread" belief (and it's not even *that* widespread) for the past few decades.

It was never a scientific stance. And it's still not. It's an arbitrary belief people started to get conservative people out to vote for their political opponents.

And if you think I'm wrong, then please show us non-partisan, objective scientific literature that clearly demonstrates a consensus belief that life begins at conception. We'll wait.

Time4killingchildren, and the like, is why I support free speech. It allows for all of us to see exactly how ignorant and ghoulish the alt-left is.

Looking forward to all the violence that the alt-left spreads over the coming months. Any over/under bets as to how many houses of faith get burnt to the ground before November?

[Solkern]

Imagine if those are the conditions after the child is born. Would you then murder that child? That is how she sees it. Adopt the child out.

All those conditions could have a direct effect with the baby being born with some type of issue/problem, that would make it nearly impossible for them to get adopted. Wouldn’t it be better to get an abortion, rather than throw the baby into a system that seems to forget the children? Living abroad, I see countless parents that have come to China/Russia to adopt children there when we have plenty that need a home back in the states.

[Solkern]

I say no. That’s why we have child protective services. If the mother is truly unfit to care for a child, we have something in place today to address that.

I’m well aware of what we have in place after the child is born, we don’t have anything in place before that.

[Neveragain]

Wouldn’t it be better to get an abortion, rather than throw the baby into a system that seems to forget the children?

If we were to eliminate every human that may suffer setbacks in life, none of us would exist.

"You may have a rough life so we have decided you should die."

Sounds reasonable.

[Gelston]

All those conditions could have a direct effect with the baby being born with some type of issue/problem, that would make it nearly impossible for them to get adopted. Wouldn’t it be better to get an abortion, rather than throw the baby into a system that seems to forget the children? Living abroad, I see countless parents that have come to China/Russia to adopt children there when we have plenty that need a home back in the states.

Doesn't matter. She sees it as murder, just like if you had a baby that had health problems and you couldn't support so you killed it.

[Neveragain]

We should carpet bomb every 3rd world country, they would be better off.

[Methais]

All those conditions could have a direct effect with the baby being born with some type of issue/problem, that would make it nearly impossible for them to get adopted. Wouldn’t it be better to get an abortion, rather than throw the baby into a system that seems to forget the children? Living abroad, I see countless parents that have come to China/Russia to adopt children there when we have plenty that need a home back in the states.

The fact that Seran somehow managed to make it to adulthood is proof that anybody can do it.

[Tgo01]

Nothing if the person was raped?

Are you suggesting you would be willing to comprise; all abortions outlawed with the exceptions of rape, incest, and health of the mother? Or are you just using the trauma of rape victims to push your political agenda of making all abortions legal?

[Tgo01]

The notion that life begins at conception is not a "scientific fact"- there's no consensus on that. There's not even a formal scientific "opinion" on the matter because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

It's hilarious that you knuckle draggers will screech at the top of your lungs about how important Roe is, yet NO WHERE IN THE ROE DECISION does it state that the fetus isn't a baby, or that it isn't a life, or that it's just a clump of cells.

All the Roe decision says is women have the right to abort their babies. All this nonsense of "it's not a baby!111!!!!" came from people like you after the fact.

[Neveragain]

It's hilarious that you knuckle draggers will screech at the top of your lungs about how important Roe is, yet NO WHERE IN THE ROE DECISION does it state that the fetus isn't a baby, or that it isn't a life, or that it's just a clump of cells.

All the Roe decision says is women have the right to abort their babies. All this nonsense of "it's not a baby!111!!!!" came from people like you after the fact.

"Cell division isn't life, men can bear children and breastfeed them." ~ Time4pseudoscience school of science.

[Tgo01]

"Cell division isn't life, men can bear children and breastfeed them." ~ Timeforpseudoscience school of science.

It's absolutely hilarious to me how overnight Democrats could suddenly define exactly what a woman is when just minutes before this leak they were telling everyone that men could get periods and get pregnant too.

Once everything settles down about this court decision they will be right back to telling us how men need to use the women's bathrooms, need to shower with women, and need to compete against women in women only sports.

[Methais]

It's hilarious that you knuckle draggers will screech at the top of your lungs about how important Roe is, yet NO WHERE IN THE ROE DECISION does it state that the fetus isn't a baby, or that it isn't a life, or that it's just a clump of cells.

All the Roe decision says is women have the right to abort their babies. All this nonsense of "it's not a baby!111!!!!" came from people like you after the fact.

It's because they have to always come up with some faux justification for why they think everything being upside down and inside out is how the world should be. Most of them are extremely dumb and gullible, so there usually isn't much of any resistance to whatever issue they're being brainwashed about at the time.

Exhibit A (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?248-Seran)

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry- scientific fact?

The notion that life begins at conception is not a "scientific fact"- there's no consensus on that. There's not even a formal scientific "opinion" on the matter because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

What you are claiming as a fact is actually a belief. And a new one at that.

In the late 60s/early 70s Evangelical community came together at various points to talk about the issue and, for the most part, the belief was that life begins at birth. NOT conception. And that was based on scripture: (https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/my-take-when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/)

The idea that life begins at conception is a political narrative that was started largely after the Roe v Wade decision to organize the religious right. So it's only been a "widespread" belief (and it's not even *that* widespread) for the past few decades.

It was never a scientific stance. And it's still not. It's an arbitrary belief people started to get conservative people out to vote for their political opponents.

And if you think I'm wrong, then please show us non-partisan, objective scientific literature that clearly demonstrates a consensus belief that life begins at conception. We'll wait.

If that fertilized cell was found on Mars, it would be definitive proof that life exists on Mars.

But, I'm sure time4fun would be proclaiming "IT'S NOT LIFE! IT'S NOT LIFE!"

Dumbass.

[Tgo01]

it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

There goes time4fun ignoring science again. How did we ever let cretins like this talk us into shutting down our economy for months/years all based on "follow the science"?

[Methais]

There goes time4fun ignoring science again. How did we ever let cretins like this talk us into shutting down our economy for months/years all based on "follow the science"?

It's mainly because republicans in office are just as spineless as lefties are retarded.

[Tgo01]

It's mainly because republicans in office are just as spineless as lefties are retarded.

We need more Trumps and Ron Dentaises in the Republican party.

[Seran]

She said the idea that life began at conception was a new belief and only began after Roe v Wade. It didn't. Stop being dense.

Also, no one really ever believed the Earth was flat, at least, not people with education.

Eratosthenes in the 200s BC calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 1.5% of its size.

And yet the Church well into the the layer 1700s for heresy against doctrine for teaching scientific theories they felt was w threat to power. Things like the earth not being flat and that the universe wasn't earth-centric. You're citing an opinion by a famous early physician about when life begins, ignoring there was absolutely no scientific way for that to be measurable. Your evidence is lacking.

[Tgo01]

You're citing an opinion by a famous early physician about when life begins, ignoring there was absolutely no scientific way for that to be measurable.

Are we really now saying "life" was a concept that people back in the 1700's couldn't possibly begin to understand? It wouldn't be until another 300+ years that people could possibly know what "life" is?

People in 1700's walking around like "Wait, is a bird a lifeform? Is a monkey a living thing? Are humans living things? I have no idea. I'm just a mindless dumb ass who doesn't know anything. I sure do hope some enlightened intellectuals in the 2000's figures it out!"

[Seran]

It's hilarious that you knuckle draggers will screech at the top of your lungs about how important Roe is, yet NO WHERE IN THE ROE DECISION does it state that the fetus isn't a baby, or that it isn't a life, or that it's just a clump of cells.

All the Roe decision says is women have the right to abort their babies. All this nonsense of "it's not a baby!111!!!!" came from people like you after the fact.

A ruling saying States can't restrict abortions doesn't need a definition of whether a fetus is a growth or a tiny tiny voter, it doesn't need a distinction of when life begins. That doesn't make it any less effective to leave it up to the medical providers to determine if an abortion is feasible. Given they are the professionals and the Supreme Court justices aren't doctors. A universal right didn't need conditions

No, all of this nonsense about it having rights and blah blah blah are stupid arguments by their Right to assert their religious dogma as a justification for ending a woman's right to choose. All these stupid distinctions are manifestation of the rights religious zealotry.

[Seran]

We need more Trumps and Ron Dentaises in the Republican party.

That's tantamount to saying we need more Putin running our country.

[Tgo01]

A ruling saying States can't restrict abortions doesn't need a definition of whether a fetus is a growth or a tiny tiny voter, it doesn't need a distinction of when life begins.

What does this have to do with you inane claim that people in 1700 couldn't possibly know what a life is? I think people had an idea of life and death in the 1700's.

[Neveragain]

ignoring there was absolutely no scientific way for that to be measurable. Your evidence is lacking.

And now we do have the science and you're acting like the Church.

[Neveragain]

If Seran was given any form of power, how many Christians would he send off to the ovens?

[Tgo01]

If Seran was given any form of power, how many Christians would he send off to the ovens?

I'm not sure he could find the time with his busy schedule of pushing abortions on young impressionable women, grooming little kids, shoving men into girl's locker rooms, forcing small women to compete against grown men in physical and dangerous sports, and having unarmed protesters shot dead if they dare to speak up against him, all the while shutting down the country for years on end to consolidate his power while maintaining he's just "following the science."

[Seran]

If Seran was given any form of power, how many Christians would he send off to the ovens?

Nah, your fascist leaders sent people to the ovens Neveragain. The Christians were sent to the lions.

[Parkbandit]

That's tantamount to saying we need more Putin running our country.

You're literally a retard.

I feel badly for your family that has to deal with you.

[Methais]

And yet the Church well into the the layer 1700s for heresy against doctrine for teaching scientific theories they felt was w threat to power. Things like the earth not being flat and that the universe wasn't earth-centric. You're citing an opinion by a famous early physician about when life begins, ignoring there was absolutely no scientific way for that to be measurable. Your evidence is lacking.

Can men get pregnant?

[Methais]

What does this have to do with you inane claim that people in 1700 couldn't possibly know what a life is? I think people had an idea of life and death in the 1700's.

You have to look at it from Seran's point of view. You see, MSNBC didn't exist yet in the 1700s, so Seran just assumed that normal people would do the same shit he does when he doesn't have MSNBC on telling him what to think.

Actual photo of Seran when he doesn't have MSNBC on:

https://i.imgur.com/ewTYDc1.gif



And here's an actual photo of Seran when he does have MSNBC on:

https://i.imgur.com/AzvHgh7.png

[time4fun]

"Cell division isn't life, men can bear children and breastfeed them." ~ Time4pseudoscience school of science.

Oh so anything with cells that divide is legally alive. So I guess we should be making chemotherapy illegal too since cancerous tumors have dividing cells. Also organ removal. Those have cell division too. Oh don't even get me started on elective surgery. I hope we have enough jail cells for all of these people.


Or we could be adults about this and acknowledge that when we say "life at conception", we are very obviously not talking about the definition of biological life. We're talking about personhood. Because if we *were* talking about the definition of biological life, then we would have to start throwing A LOT of people in jail.

So why don't you take another shot at this Mr "I got through 7th grade science class with a passing grade"

[Tgo01]

Oh so anything with cells that divide is legally alive.

Well now hold on there, buckaroo! Are you recognizing that a fetus is indeed a "life", just not "legally alive"? Is that a distinction you are now making?

[Neveragain]

Oh so anything with cells that divide is legally alive. So I guess we should be making chemotherapy illegal too since cancerous tumors have dividing cells. Also organ removal. Those have cell division too. Oh don't even get me started on elective surgery. I hope we have enough jail cells for all of these people.


Or we could be adults about this and acknowledge that when we say "life at conception", we are very obviously not talking about the definition of biological life. We're talking about personhood. Because if we *were* talking about the definition of biological life, then we would have to start throwing A LOT of people in jail.

So why don't you take another shot at this Mr "I got through 7th grade science class with a passing grade"

What do cancerous tumors and organs all have in common?

We can test their DNA and show that it is your cancer, your organ. We can literally match the DNA to your own unique set of DNA but it won't match your kids DNA.

I encourage you to continue equating a human being to cancer though, it highlights just how fucked in the head people like you are.

[Jeril]

Can men get pregnant?

I'll get your face pregnant!

[Shaps]

At this point, we should just Logan's Run this shit. That is the "new green deal" I propose.

[Seran]

What do cancerous tumors and organs all have in common?

We can test their DNA and show that it is your cancer, your organ. We can literally match the DNA to your own unique set of DNA but it won't match your kids DNA.

I encourage you to continue equating a human being to cancer though, it highlights just how fucked in the head people like you are.

Gonna be pretty amazing when they realize that the growth rate of cancer is indeed similar to gestation, only uncontrolled rather than systematic. Only one is often malignant and should always be cut out, the other is only occasionally malignant and of subjective benefit to allow growth. Either way its the choice of the owner to rid themselves of the growth

[Neveragain]

Gonna be pretty amazing when they realize that the growth rate of cancer is indeed similar to gestation, only uncontrolled rather than systematic. Only one is often malignant and should always be cut out, the other is only occasionally malignant and of subjective benefit to allow growth. Either way its the choice of the owner to rid themselves of the growth

https://c.tenor.com/sVDTiJW-0IYAAAAC/insane-bradpitt.gif

[time4fun]

What do cancerous tumors and organs all have in common?

We can test their DNA and show that it is your cancer, your organ. We can literally match the DNA to your own unique set of DNA but it won't match your kids DNA.

I encourage you to continue equating a human being to cancer though, it highlights just how fucked in the head people like you are.

So a fetus would share 50% of its DNA with the mother, not 0%. Maybe you didn't actually get through 7th grade science...

To your point though, does that mean a fetus is only 50% alive? Oh and what exactly does that have to do with life beginning at conception again? Just because you can cite a difference between two things doesn't mean the difference is relevant. Because your patchy definition would also make multicellular fungal infections people with constitutional protections.

Finally, where is this evidence of scientific consensus that a fetus is alive in the sense that it would qualify for personhood, and where specifically does it say that the qualifications are "has cell division" and "shares no more than 50% of your DNA"?

Or are you just making things up at this point because you realize "science" does not have your back and that your whole idea of when personhood starts is an arbitrary belief that isn't based on actual facts?

[Neveragain]

Just because you can cite a difference between two things doesn't mean the difference is relevant.

I suppose in crazy town, which is obviously your zip code, the difference between cancer and a human being isn't relevant.


So a fetus would share 50% of its DNA with the mother, not 0%.

At least we can agree that it's not the woman's body.

[Neveragain]

Time4killingchildren as the prosecuting attorney in a murder case:

The Matlock moment "50% of the DNA matches the defenses mother, so it was 100% the mother that committed the murder."

[Suppressed Poet]

So a fetus would share 50% of its DNA with the mother, not 0%. Maybe you didn't actually get through 7th grade science...

To your point though, does that mean a fetus is only 50% alive? Oh and what exactly does that have to do with life beginning at conception again? Just because you can cite a difference between two things doesn't mean the difference is relevant. Because your patchy definition would also make multicellular fungal infections people with constitutional protections.

Finally, where is this evidence of scientific consensus that a fetus is alive in the sense that it would qualify for personhood, and where specifically does it say that the qualifications are "has cell division" and "shares no more than 50% of your DNA"?

Or are you just making things up at this point because you realize "science" does not have your back and that your whole idea of when personhood starts is an arbitrary belief that isn't based on actual facts?

I for one support a woman’s bodily autonomy and the privacy she has with her doctor.

…And I encourage you to speak with yours about your obvious premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms.

[time4fun]

I for one support a woman’s bodily autonomy and the privacy she has with her doctor.

…And I encourage you to speak with yours about your obvious premenstrual dysphoric disorder symptoms.

Yeah...I'll go do that while you read Exodus 21:22 and tell me with a straight face that God thinks a fetus is the same thing as a person.

[time4fun]

Time4killingchildren as the prosecuting attorney in a murder case:

The Matlock moment "50% of the DNA matches the defenses mother, so it was 100% the mother that committed the murder."

I see you still don't have that scientific evidence to support your argument. So it's not science that's saying that a fetus is the same thing as a person.

You're just making things up and don't realize it anymore.

So what's your actual argument against abortion again? What's your evidence that a fetus is functionally a child at conception, and that its existence is more important than the woman carrying it, who is indisputably a person?

[Tgo01]

Yeah...I'll go do that while you read Exodus 21:22 and tell me with a straight face that God thinks a fetus is the same thing as a person.

Uhm...so there are like a gajillion translations of this but here are a few I found:


If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.


Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.


If men who are fighting strike a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands and as the court allows.


If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.


When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment.


If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

So uh...where in there do you get the idea that God doesn't think a fetus is a person?

[Neveragain]

who is indisputably a person?

Both.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/04/05/PNAS/b9a4b4d5-a6ac-4b89-a549-d10f76d152d7-Sedinam_at_birth_in_NICU.jpg?width=1280&height=720&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/confident-businesswoman-over-gray-background-picture-id682897825?b=1&k=20&m=682897825&s=170667a&w=0&h=UlFjLeKb3oV4w0ljSrpXEBBN5NElLap21dq8V55YT6A=

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sc-rYnE6CGU/mqdefault.jpg

Which one is indisputably a person?

[Seran]

Yeah...I'll go do that while you read Exodus 21:22 and tell me with a straight face that God thinks a fetus is the same thing as a person.

Bible doesn't recognize the value of a non-viable baby anymore than the majority of American society. Though kind of cringey to cite a section of Exodus that promotes being a food master to your slaves.

[Neveragain]

Person: "a human being regarded as an individual."

Individual: "a single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family."

Distinct: "recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type." (as in "a distinct set of DNA")

What's like knowing your supposed college degrees are worth less than my 7th grade biology class?

[Neveragain]

Though kind of cringey to cite a section of Exodus that promotes being a food master to your slaves.

Cringey, as apposed to killing your child because you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions?

[Suppressed Poet]

Yeah...I'll go do that while you read Exodus 21:22 and tell me with a straight face that God thinks a fetus is the same thing as a person.

Oh I forgot about your religious supremacy... So you must be one of those types that take short verses from the Old Testament completely out of context in the most narrow minded literal interpretation to use as supporting evidence of whatever twisted agenda you desire, huh?

I’ll play your fun little game. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Yeah we should totally make a law for that exactly as it’s described. Right?

[Suppressed Poet]

Which one is indisputably a person?

Da Baby gets to live because (insert preferred pronoun definitely not based upon having a penis or vagina) is already doing (pronoun’s) part keeping us all safe by wearing a mask.

Ole boomer-faced gets to live because A) She is brown and indigenous AND B) is needed for a bikini photo to go on the cover of next month’s Vogue series “The modern sexy”.

40 year old white supremacist Karen doesn’t look nearly woke enough. She probably wears a MAGA hat. Definitely sub-human and needs to be purged.

What do I win???

[Methais]

Oh so anything with cells that divide is legally alive. So I guess we should be making chemotherapy illegal too since cancerous tumors have dividing cells. Also organ removal. Those have cell division too. Oh don't even get me started on elective surgery. I hope we have enough jail cells for all of these people.


Or we could be adults about this and acknowledge that when we say "life at conception", we are very obviously not talking about the definition of biological life. We're talking about personhood. Because if we *were* talking about the definition of biological life, then we would have to start throwing A LOT of people in jail.

So why don't you take another shot at this Mr "I got through 7th grade science class with a passing grade"

Someone’s upset lol.




What do cancerous tumors and organs all have in common?

We can test their DNA and show that it is your cancer, your organ. We can literally match the DNA to your own unique set of DNA but it won't match your kids DNA.

I encourage you to continue equating a human being to cancer though, it highlights just how fucked in the head people like you are.

In time4fun’s defense, she’s very experienced with being cancer.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I love it when T4F comes in and gets destroyed. All those degrees, education and expertise in everything (yeah we all believe you) and still gets it all wrong. Better tune back into the View and Don Lemon for some updates and get back to us.

[Parkbandit]

Gonna be pretty amazing when they realize that the growth rate of cancer is indeed similar to gestation, only uncontrolled rather than systematic. Only one is often malignant and should always be cut out, the other is only occasionally malignant and of subjective benefit to allow growth. Either way its the choice of the owner to rid themselves of the growth

"A fetus is just like a cancer!" - Seran 2022

[Parkbandit]

I love it when T4F comes in and gets destroyed. All those degrees, education and expertise in everything (yeah we all believe you) and still gets it all wrong. Better tune back into the View and Don Lemon for some updates and get back to us.

You better watch yourself... she makes more than all of us.

[Seran]

Cringey, as apposed to killing your child because you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions?

Aborting an unwanted college of cells or a non-viable fetus. And I'm glad you overlook everything from rape, incest, genetic defects, unpreparedness, financial security, emotional insecurity, as valid reasons to not be a parent, because you wouldn't be the worthless person you are otherwise.

[Seran]

Oh I forgot about your religious supremacy... So you must be one of those types that take short verses from the Old Testament completely out of context in the most narrow minded literal interpretation to use as supporting evidence of whatever twisted agenda you desire, huh?

I’ll play your fun little game. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,
24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Yeah we should totally make a law for that exactly as it’s described. Right?

The Bible makes for some pretty convincing abstinence policies, along with carelessness about unborn children and slaves. The old testament explains some of the fuckhood that happened before the 18th century, greed and megalomania the rest. But you've still got an entire Republican party trying to control women's lives based off of an arcane text, fucked up translations and absolute moral martyrdom. How about we remember equal protections, freedom FROM religion are all spelled different out in the Constitution and stop pretending we live in in a Christian Theocracy?

[Seran]

I love it when T4F comes in and gets destroyed. All those degrees, education and expertise in everything (yeah we all believe you) and still gets it all wrong. Better tune back into the View and Don Lemon for some updates and get back to us.

Your comment reminds me of all those Fox News banner articles citing Twitter opinions as proof government policies are invalid. Kind of sad you think Dreaven and crew are doing anything beyond frothing at the mouth.

[Parkbandit]

Aborting an unwanted college of cells or a non-viable fetus. And I'm glad you overlook everything from rape, incest, genetic defects,

These account for what.. 1%? 2% of all abortions?

I'll be honest, I'm making that number up.. but I'm sure that number is infinitesimally small, given that liberals always use that as an excuse to keep abortions legal.



unpreparedness, financial security, emotional insecurity, as valid reasons to not be a parent, because you wouldn't be the worthless person you are otherwise.

These reasons would be not wanting to take responsibility for your own actions.

[Suppressed Poet]

The Bible makes for some pretty convincing abstinence policies, along with carelessness about unborn children and slaves. The old testament explains some of the fuckhood that happened before the 18th century, greed and megalomania the rest. But you've still got an entire Republican party trying to control women's lives based off of an arcane text, fucked up translations and absolute moral martyrdom. How about we remember equal protections, freedom FROM religion are all spelled different out in the Constitution and stop pretending we live in in a Christian Theocracy?

Taking a very literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is generally not a great idea. There are religious and moral truths within scripture, but it’s not a history or law book.

I’m with you on separation of church and government, but understand that people are guided by their moral principles. For most people those principles have a religion as their foundation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Is it beyond your comprehension that an atheist/agnostic may have a moral objection to abortion? I know MSNBC tells us that every group fits in a nice little organized partisan box, but the real world is much more diverse.

[Neveragain]

These account for what.. 1%? 2% of all abortions?

Roughly 1%.

[Neveragain]

The Bible makes for some pretty convincing abstinence policies, along with carelessness about unborn children and slaves. The old testament explains some of the fuckhood that happened before the 18th century, greed and megalomania the rest. But you've still got an entire Republican party trying to control women's lives based off of an arcane text, fucked up translations and absolute moral martyrdom. How about we remember equal protections, freedom FROM religion are all spelled different out in the Constitution and stop pretending we live in in a Christian Theocracy?

Oddly, the only person that has used the Bible as a reference is your side of the argument.

I avoid using the Bible as a reference because I know cretins, like you, won't accept biblical arguments.

Besides, why would I use the bible when science overwhelmingly proves that abortion is the act of murdering a human being.

I get that you and your ilk needs to paint everyone as a religious zealot simply because every argument on the pro-baby killer side is void of logic and reason.

[Jeril]

You better watch yourself... she makes more than all of us. You forgot the combined part.

[Seran]

Taking a very literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is generally not a great idea. There are religious and moral truths within scripture, but it’s not a history or law book.

I’m with you on separation of church and government, but understand that people are guided by their moral principles. For most people those principles have a religion as their foundation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Is it beyond your comprehension that an atheist/agnostic may have a moral objection to abortion? I know MSNBC tells us that every group fits in a nice little organized partisan box, but the real world is much more diverse.

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

[Seran]

Oddly, the only person that has used the Bible as a reference is your side of the argument.

I avoid using the Bible as a reference because I know cretins, like you, won't accept biblical arguments.

Besides, why would I use the bible when science overwhelmingly proves that abortion is the act of murdering a human being.

I get that you and your ilk needs to paint everyone as a religious zealot simply because every argument on the pro-baby killer side is void of logic and reason.

Calling someone a baby killer is the epitome of the religious zealotry as your only definition is motivated by your beliefs. The Old Testament and it's fire and brimstone teachings were the ONLY teachings for centuries and oral traditions continue those backwards beliefs, despite the new family friendly j/k we've changed approach of the New Testament.

I don't get how you and the Republicans can condemn religious fervor and dementia in the Muslim world, yet he completely supportive of the same toxic beliefs being used to control our citizens.

[Neveragain]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem.

So, kind of like killing a human being because your dogma says it's not a human being?

[Neveragain]

Calling someone a baby killer is the epitome of the religious zealotry

It's not zealotry when we know for a fact that a baby is being murdered, hence, baby killer is 100% accurate.

[Suppressed Poet]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

There is nothing written in the constitution or amendments that says a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy shall not be infringed. Roe vs Wade established a legal precedent on the basis of other amendments (acknowledged even by liberals as a weak argument), and that was subsequently overturned (leaked draft not official yet). You can object to / not like that decision, but there is no constitutional right to abortion and the process in the Supreme Court was totally legal. It’s up to the states and legislature now.

If you are so confident that 80% of the American public (or whatever number the news sources use) agree to a woman’s right to abortion, than surely in time Congress can create a new constitutional amendment to specifically name that as a right.

[Gelston]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

SCOTUS says it isn’t a Constitutional right. You can disagree, but you’re wrong.

[Seran]

So, kind of like killing a human being because your dogma says it's not a human being?

Because scientific evidence says it is not.

[Parkbandit]

People are welcome to believe in whatever religion, dogma, creed, etc., but when those beliefs are being forced upon others or bring harm to others beyond themselves we have a problem. Government officials in particular are required to set aside bias, Supreme Court justices being the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution are held to the same, if not a higher standard given the power wielded by life long appointees.

I comprehend fine that people have an objection, but their objection confers no right to curtail the LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL rights of others.

If this decision is indeed the majority, it's legal.

Sorry.

[Seran]

If you are so confident that 80% of the American public (or whatever number the news sources use) agree to a woman’s right to abortion, than surely in time Congress can create a new constitutional amendment to specifically name that as a right.

Oh, are we pretending that Congress does what their constituents want now? 2/3rds support increasing corporate taxes and those on the one percent, instead they were cut further. 4/5ths support a woman's right to choose, but the Supreme Court is undoing that. You act as if a constitutional amendment were easy to pass and foolishly overlook basic legislation has been pretty much at a standstill for over a decade.

Because there is a conservative majority and because Congress can technically (but not realistically) codify a woman's right to choose isn't grounds for infringing on equal rights.

[Seran]

SCOTUS says it isn’t a Constitutional right. You can disagree, but you’re wrong.

This session of the Supreme Court has. While a few dozen sessions prior have all upheld it. Doesn't change its constitutionality simply because your team out zealots on the bench.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Your comment reminds me of all those Fox News banner articles citing Twitter opinions as proof government policies are invalid. Kind of sad you think Dreaven and crew are doing anything beyond frothing at the mouth.

Your comments remind me of the people who dedicated a night scream at the sky because Trump was elected.

[Parkbandit]

This session of the Supreme Court has. While a few dozen sessions prior have all upheld it. Doesn't change its constitutionality simply because your team out zealots on the bench.

It literally does.

Just because YOU don't agree with it doesn't make it any less true though.

[Gelston]

This session of the Supreme Court has. While a few dozen sessions prior have all upheld it. Doesn't change its constitutionality simply because your team out zealots on the bench.

This session of SCOTUS is what matters right now. It 100% changes the Constitutionality of it.

[Parkbandit]

This session of SCOTUS is what matters right now. It 100% changes the Constitutionality of it.

"BUT IT'S NOT FAIR!" -Seran

[Seran]

Your comments remind me of the people who dedicated a night scream at the sky because Trump was elected.

Screaming at the sky is certainly better than attempting to falsify voter counts in Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. Certainly it's better than organizing a coup to storm Congress while it's in session certifying your defeat. :)

[beldannon5]

Biden sure got a lot of votes is all i am saying. Ahh yes we tried to overtake the government with like 200 people, that will do it. Ahh Seran you make me giggle, laugh, and cry

[Parkbandit]

Biden sure got a lot of votes is all i am saying. Ahh yes we tried to overtake the government with like 200 people, that will do it. Ahh Seran you make me giggle, laugh, and cry

Seran reminds me that there are some really, really stupid people that I am thankful I do not have around me.

I bet his level of stupidity is exhausting for his family and friend.

[Methais]

You forgot the combined part.

And that's just what she pays in taxes.

[Seran]

Biden sure got a lot of votes is all i am saying. Ahh yes we tried to overtake the government with like 200 people, that will do it. Ahh Seran you make me giggle, laugh, and cry

Yeah, it's ironic how the more popular candidate gets more votes than the person they beat, odd. I'm sure you Deep State folks are terrified by how well everything was hidden that no evidence after a year and a half and hundreds of audits, investigations and hearings.

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah, it's ironic how the more popular candidate gets more votes than the person they beat, odd. I'm sure you Deep State folks are terrified by how well everything was hidden that no evidence after a year and a half and hundreds of audits, investigations and hearings.

Ummmm, loads of evidence, many investigations ongoing and some court cases.

[time4fun]

Ummmm, loads of evidence, many investigations ongoing and some court cases.

I'm sorry- what evidence exactly?

Be specific. Cite it.

And which court cases? Because 63 of them were thrown out.

[beldannon5]

Yeah, it's ironic how the more popular candidate gets more votes than the person they beat, odd. I'm sure you Deep State folks are terrified by how well everything was hidden that no evidence after a year and a half and hundreds of audits, investigations and hearings.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH psycho. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Also Thank you Biden for canceling some oil leases that will really help with those really low gas prices we have

[time4fun]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH psycho. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Also Thank you Biden for canceling some oil leases that will really help with those really low gas prices we have

You do understand that there is a *global* energy crisis going on, right?

And that the US has blunted a significant amount of the pain compared to other nations?

[Tgo01]

And that the US has blunted a significant amount of the pain compared to other nations?

You fuckers just get more and more funny.

"Be happy it's ONLY a 100%+ increase since Biden snaked his way into the White House! It could be worse! We could be Cuba!"

[beldannon5]

You do understand that there is a *global* energy crisis going on, right?

And that the US has blunted a significant amount of the pain compared to other nations?

was just reading this is all. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-cancels-oil-and-gas-lease-sales-in-alaska-gulf-of-mexico/ar-AAXb2bi?ocid=undefined&cvid=a9af57352943413f8d00b8567f7515ce

[Neveragain]

was just reading this is all. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-cancels-oil-and-gas-lease-sales-in-alaska-gulf-of-mexico/ar-AAXb2bi?ocid=undefined&cvid=a9af57352943413f8d00b8567f7515ce

There won't be a middle class left by the end of this administration.

[Seran]

You do understand that there is a *global* energy crisis going on, right?

And that the US has blunted a significant amount of the pain compared to other nations?


In a statement shared first with CBS News, the Department of the Interior cited a "lack of industry interest in leasing in the area" for the decision to "not move forward" with the Cook Inlet lease sale. The department also halted two leases under consideration for the Gulf of Mexico region because of "conflicting court rulings that impacted work on these proposed lease sales."

I love how the Right is frothing at the mouth over the headline, but obviously didn't read the article given the cause of the leases being unavailable has nothing to do with the Biden administration.

[Parkbandit]

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0323/0371/0253/products/2MMO-8028Silo.jpg?v=1622838390

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I love how the Right is frothing at the mouth over the headline, but obviously didn't read the article given the cause of the leases being unavailable has nothing to do with the Biden administration.

I love how you ignore why the industry isn't interested in investing $ in leasing in those areas. Read other articles on the same subject. You'll get a host of reasons.

It's like you didn't read how the administration is making it more expensive and time consuming to do so, has been attacking the industry from go and now are scratching their heads why no one wants to come bail out their emergency. I mean, you attack an industry for months, years and then expect them to come rushing to bail you out for your failed policies? That sounds like something an entitled, ignorant brat would do. Maybe go scream at the heavens again and pray for big oil to save the failing energy policies of a sun downing president who has gotten every policy wrong for 50 years.

[Seran]

I love how you ignore why the industry isn't interested in investing $ in leasing in those areas. Read other articles on the same subject. You'll get a host of reasons.

It's like you didn't read how the administration is making it more expensive and time consuming to do so, has been attacking the industry from go and now are scratching their heads why no one wants to come bail out their emergency. I mean, you attack an industry for months, years and then expect them to come rushing to bail you out for your failed policies? That sounds like something an entitled, ignorant brat would do. Maybe go scream at the heavens again and pray for big oil to save the failing energy policies of a sun downing president who has gotten every policy wrong for 50 years.

Kind of like how Trump trashed China for months, started a trade war, then was shocked when they demanded such unequal terms for an agreement which they never fulfilled? Or how about how the former administration yanked us out of every treaty they could, without any care for national security interests and all the while trash talking our allies and cozying up to our enemies in Russia, North Korea, and the Taliban? Look at where all that has led us.

Don't even pretend you have an inkling about the oil industry, not when time and time again their own press releases, industry feedback letters to the Fed has shown that their need to improve profit and not any government or government regulation has stopped their unidling wells or increasing drilling. The topic has been covered to death in the other thread and yet people like you never learn, even when all the contradictory evidence proving your argument is invalid has been cited.

[Methais]

Kind of like how Trump trashed China for months, started a trade war, then was shocked when they demanded such unequal terms for an agreement which they never fulfilled? Or how about how the former administration yanked us out of every treaty they could, without any care for national security interests and all the while trash talking our allies and cozying up to our enemies in Russia, North Korea, and the Taliban? Look at where all that has led us.

Don't even pretend you have an inkling about the oil industry, not when time and time again their own press releases, industry feedback letters to the Fed has shown that their need to improve profit and not any government or government regulation has stopped their unidling wells or increasing drilling. The topic has been covered to death in the other thread and yet people like you never learn, even when all the contradictory evidence proving your argument is invalid has been cited.

B-b-b-b-but Trump!

[time4fun]

There won't be a middle class left by the end of this administration.

No. You don't get to support people who have gutted collective bargaining rights, fought against a realistic minimum wage, who keep trying to lower taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else, who make policy out of denying people health insurance, who deprive schools of funding, who fight for business rights over peoples' rights at every turn, who have made money speech, who have gutted campaign finance restrictions, who have fought to prevent federally funded child care and maternity leave, and who have decided to obliterate things like social security and welfare and then turn around and blame the other party for the decline of the middle class. You don't get to spend years pretending like income inequality doesn't exist and isn't an issue even if it does and then turn around and blame democrats for income inequality.

YOU have done nothing but cheer on everything that has decimated our middle class and have shown nothing but disdain and abject cruelty towards the poor.

[time4fun]

I love how the Right is frothing at the mouth over the headline, but obviously didn't read the article given the cause of the leases being unavailable has nothing to do with the Biden administration.

They never read more than headlines. And they only read headlines from disreputable sources.

It's why Rockstar is still running around utterly convinced there's evidence of widespread voter fraud that cost Trump the election in 2020. It'd be funny if it weren't like 30% of our electorate.

[Parkbandit]

No. You don't get to support people who have gutted collective bargaining rights, fought against a realistic minimum wage, who keep trying to lower taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else, who make policy out of denying people health insurance, who deprive schools of funding, who fight for business rights over peoples' rights at every turn, who have made money speech, who have gutted campaign finance restrictions, who have fought to prevent federally funded child care and maternity leave, and who have decided to obliterate things like social security and welfare and then turn around and blame the other party for the decline of the middle class. You don't get to spend years pretending like income inequality doesn't exist and isn't an issue even if it does and then turn around and blame democrats for income inequality.

YOU have done nothing but cheer on everything that has decimated our middle class and have shown nothing but disdain and abject cruelty towards the poor.

LOL.

The Democrats didn't leave the middle class, the middle class left unions that supported the Democrats.. so fuck them! -time4fun logic

[Methais]

No. You don't get to support people who have gutted collective bargaining rights, fought against a realistic minimum wage, who keep trying to lower taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else, who make policy out of denying people health insurance, who deprive schools of funding, who fight for business rights over peoples' rights at every turn, who have made money speech, who have gutted campaign finance restrictions, who have fought to prevent federally funded child care and maternity leave, and who have decided to obliterate things like social security and welfare and then turn around and blame the other party for the decline of the middle class. You don't get to spend years pretending like income inequality doesn't exist and isn't an issue even if it does and then turn around and blame democrats for income inequality.

YOU have done nothing but cheer on everything that has decimated our middle class and have shown nothing but disdain and abject cruelty towards the poor.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrtSvCPaygs

[Bhaalizmo]

Lulz.

It's perfectly ok to print counterfeit money for fake countries. For example, the confederacy.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/03/24/11-things-might-not-know-samuel-upham/

[Gelston]

Lulz.

It's perfectly ok to print counterfeit money for fake countries. For example, the confederacy.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/03/24/11-things-might-not-know-samuel-upham/

Countries of all sorts still do this. China is alleged to be pumping out a ton of counterfeit US currency.

I wouldn't doubt if the US does it too.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/eligible-wait-cdc-saying-think-193254625.html

"‘If you’re eligible, can you wait?’ The CDC is saying to think again about a second COVID booster. Is it rationing vaccines?"

"....those who are eligible for a second booster should consider how likely they are to get “very sick” from the virus based on preexisting health issues and potential community exposure."

"Updated guidance encourages those eligible to think again based on “the benefits and risks of a second booster,” but does not expound. The CDC did not respond to questions from Fortune on Friday as to what the potential risk and benefits are of a second booster, in particular, or whether there are concerns about the continued efficacy of current vaccines, especially in light of immune-evading Omicron subvariants."


Remember the past 2+ years? Being told you're an evil bastard who wants your neighbors to die, media companies regulating and "fact checking" peoples honest discussions about everything, the Left demonizing anyone who even asked these questions and how it related to their personal health?

So this administration now wants people to die? They're asking vulnerable people to wait? Evil bastards! Right? Right?

I remember...

Now they're telling you... "well, you don't really need it - base it off your personal health choices"... You lemmings and morons out there get it yet? Fucking 2+ years of shit because people are fucking idiots.

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeqzdQqWEAY

Isn't the new Government sanctioned "Office of Disinformation" supposed to ensure "false information" isn't spread? Oh wait....

[Neveragain]

No. You don't get to support people who have gutted collective bargaining rights, fought against a realistic minimum wage, who keep trying to lower taxes on the wealthy far more than anyone else, who make policy out of denying people health insurance, who deprive schools of funding, who fight for business rights over peoples' rights at every turn, who have made money speech, who have gutted campaign finance restrictions, who have fought to prevent federally funded child care and maternity leave, and who have decided to obliterate things like social security and welfare and then turn around and blame the other party for the decline of the middle class. You don't get to spend years pretending like income inequality doesn't exist and isn't an issue even if it does and then turn around and blame democrats for income inequality.

YOU have done nothing but cheer on everything that has decimated our middle class and have shown nothing but disdain and abject cruelty towards the poor.

That's odd, I voted Democrat my entire life up until idiots, like you, showed up on the scene. In fact, people like you chased us out of the Democrat party. You spent the last decade calling us all "ist's" of some form or another and now you're shocked that you lost our vote?

Do you honestly believe that you're going to retain the white blue collar vote with the nonsense that people like you spew? (men can have babies, men can breastfeed.......)

https://c.tenor.com/gg50ieZP8HgAAAAC/crazy-crazy-pills.gif

[Fortybox]

That's odd, I voted Democrat my entire life up until idiots, like you, showed up on the scene. In fact, people like you chased us out of the Democrat party. You spent the last decade calling us all "ist's" of some form or another and now you're shocked that you lost our vote?

Do you honestly believe that you're going to retain the white blue collar vote with the nonsense that people like you spew? (men can have babies, men can breastfeed.......)

https://c.tenor.com/gg50ieZP8HgAAAAC/crazy-crazy-pills.gif

https://i.imgur.com/dfKh9.gif

[Seran]

Russia would like you to know that countries joining NATO, not his invading former Soviet states to seize territory will increase military tension. LOL


'Military tension will rise’: Russia chides NATO Nordic expansion

Decisions by Finland and Sweden to join the Western military alliance threaten to increase the chance of armed confrontation, Russian official says.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/16/russia-wont-put-up-with-natos-nordic-expansion-minister

[Seran]

That's odd, I voted Democrat my entire life up until idiots, like you, showed up on the scene. In fact, people like you chased us out of the Democrat party. You spent the last decade calling us all "ist's" of some form or another and now you're shocked that you lost our vote?

Do you honestly believe that you're going to retain the white blue collar vote with the nonsense that people like you spew? (men can have babies, men can breastfeed.......)

https://c.tenor.com/gg50ieZP8HgAAAAC/crazy-crazy-pills.gif

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

He's more moderate, so of course you think he's the "Right".

[Methais]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

With as far to the left as you are, you probably consider time4fun a right winger too.

It's a side effect of you being a retard.

[Suppressed Poet]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

Is Bill Maher a right winger too?

[Parkbandit]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

He spouts his socialism/communism manifesto from his homemade lean-to.

Not as right as they come.

At all.

[Methais]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

Other than his stance against abortion, what are some of his other beliefs that you know of that make him "as Right as they come?"

Be specific. Everyone reading this already knows that you won't, but just try anyway. Unless you'd prefer everyone just keep thinking you're a drooling mongoloid.

A drooling mongoloid just arrived.

>l mong

You see Seran.
He is extremely butthurt.

[Seran]

He's more moderate, so of course you think he's the "Right".

He's about as Left as the kid executing people in a supermarket after heeding the call from Conservatives to stop the White Replacement. Ie: not at all.

[Neveragain]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

The alt-left spends more than a decade blaming white people for everything and now your shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you, that the pendulum swings back like a wrecking ball.

For fuck sake, the alt-left has gone out of their way to rub replacement theory in peoples faces and now they scream about replacement theory pushing people over the edge.

[Gelston]

I call bullshit. There's not an single bit of your ideology which is Democratic, you're as Right as they come.

Do you even readd what other people post? He is constantly spouting out how happy he is to be a fucking welfare recipient and leeching off the system. He is further left than you.

[Seran]

Neveragain is a registered Republican, their spin is about as alt-right and neofascist as it comes.

[Methais]

Neveragain is a registered Republican, their spin is about as alt-right and neofascist as it comes.

It's not that Neveragain moved to the right. It's that retards like you moved that far to the left.

Here's a picture so you can hopefully understand, since you struggle with words so badly:

https://i.imgur.com/1508EBS.pngg


A year or two from now you'll be calling Obama alt-right.

[Neveragain]

Do you even readd what other people post? He is constantly spouting out how happy he is to be a fucking welfare recipient and leeching off the system. He is further left than you.

Investing and saving enough to retire early isn't a welfare recipient.

Fucking jar head.

[Gelston]

Investing and saving enough to retire early isn't a welfare recipient.

Fucking jar head.

Yeah you straight up talk about living off government shit constantly. Don't act like a clueless retard now.

[Neveragain]

Yeah you straight up talk about living off government shit constantly. Don't act like a clueless retard now.

I do?

I talk about reinvesting in our infrastructure and the importance of a public safety net instead of spending 800 billion a year on military.

I mean I know your cool with welfare as long as a person goes off to kill brown people in illegal wars.

[Gelston]

I do?

I talk about reinvesting in our infrastructure and the importance of a public safety net instead of spending 800 billion a year on military.

I mean I know your cool with welfare as long as a person goes off to kill brown people in illegal wars.

Funny that you'd consider working for pay to be welfare, but no one ever accused you of being intelligent.

[Neveragain]

Funny that you'd consider working for pay to be welfare, but no one ever accused you of being intelligent.

By work you mean, murdering brown people in illegal wars.

[Gelston]

By work you mean, murdering brown people in illegal wars.

Nope. Keep crying.

[Neveragain]

Nope. Keep crying.

Who's crying, I'm fine being retired at 52.

I know, I know, you were defending our freedom....from goat herders.

[Parkbandit]

I talk about reinvesting in our infrastructure and the importance of a public safety net

It's not a "safety net" if you are using it in lieu of working.

[Gelston]

Who's crying, I'm fine being retired at 52.

I know, I know, you were defending our freedom....from goat herders.

You are constantly crying. Probably feel pretty insecure.

[Neveragain]

You are constantly crying. Probably feel pretty insecure.

So insecure that I'm retired at 52 and you feel the need to make up stories about welfare because of it.

https://y.yarn.co/5db7f116-488b-466e-b614-6f6930132bc4_text.gif

[Neveragain]

It's not a "safety net" if you are using it in lieu of working.

My idea of working these days is clicking a button a couple times and clearing what you make in 6 months.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My idea of working these days is clicking a button a couple times and clearing what you make in 6 months.

Day trading?

[Parkbandit]

My idea of working these days is clicking a button a couple times and clearing what you make in 6 months.

Oh sweetie.. you can't pull off the time4fun. You don't have the creative chops for it.

Also, no one with an IQ above 12 believes you are rich.

At all.

[Parkbandit]

Day trading?

Day Dreaming.

[Suppressed Poet]

I know, I know, you were defending our freedom....from goat herders.

Eff those goat-fuckin’ towel-head jihadist savages.

[Tgo01]

You gotta love what's happening in NY.

So NY made it part of their constitution that the state couldn't gerrymander when it comes time to draw up new districts. This passed in 2014 so this would be the first time the maps are drawn since the change to the constitution. And boy oh boy! Democrats just couldn't wait to do the thing they always complain about: gerrymander the fuck out of NY!

Their map had 22 safe seats for Democrats and just 4 safe seats for Republicans. Yes that's almost 85% of seats would be safe for Democrats, from the party who hates gerrymandering.

Well the courts struck that shit down because...well of course! That's the literal definition of gerrymandering.

Now the courts have released a map that hasn't been finalized yet, but oh boy, is it entertaining to see what's happening already! The new more "fair" map has 15 safe Democrat seats, 5 safe Republican seats, and 6 tossup seats (right now it's 19 Democrats and 7 Republicans.)

Not only are Democrats saying the map is unfair (because they can't clearly cheat anymore), but it is also causing some massive infighting. Already whities are being accused of being racist for announcing they will run against a black man for the same district, the courts are being accused of being racist for merging two Democrat districts so two black members will have to face each other for the same seat, some are crying because more well known and more powerful Democrats are moving into their districts and they don't think they can now win reelection.

The funny thing is they could have avoided all of this and everyone could have kept their seats and nothing would have happened, if they just followed their own constitution. But we all know Democrats love to wipe their asses with constitutions so they'll never learn.

[~Rocktar~]

WOW, what a demonstration of why diversity hiring is a bad idea. Not only is this ignorant wingnut new press secretary super bad at her job, she looks like she is trying to talk to a bunch of kids from the couch or some shit. What a joke and I love this guy's take on it.


https://youtu.be/MUa3EuMmLRo

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCPH6_QZu_g

LOL.. just rewrite history.. and the backpedaling begins. Don't forget what they did for over 2+ years, because they'll claim they didn't..

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/politics/anthony-fauci-national-lockdown-bars-restaurants-cnntv/index.html

"Top infectious disease expert doesn't rule out supporting temporary national lockdown to combat coronavirus"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10625773/Fauci-warns-America-face-COVID-lockdowns-cases-tick-again.html

"Voice of doom Dr Fauci warns US could face MORE COVID lockdowns as he admits latest variant set to hit US is less serious than Omicron: 'We can't just say we're done'"

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fauci-says-we-may-never-know-if-costs-of-covid-lockdowns-outweigh-benefits/

"Fauci Says We May Never Know If Costs of Covid Lockdowns Outweigh Benefits"


But, apparently there were no lockdowns.. because, Fauci just doesn't use that word.. ROFL

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGN8pfrvuwQ

Imagine being so dumb, you admit it to a stranger... fucking commie cucks are mad that Elon might actually allow freedom of speech.

[Seran]

Speaking of back pedaling, Elon Musk is already trying to find his way out of the deal without hitting a massive penalty. It's clear to most endless that he just used it as an excuse to sell his own stock without the immediate backlash of a more profound drop in Tesla stock. Musky boy has no interest in Twitter beyond using it as a bot farm to prop up his meme stock.

[Methais]

Speaking of back pedaling, Elon Musk is already trying to find his way out of the deal without hitting a massive penalty. It's clear to most endless that he just used it as an excuse to sell his own stock without the immediate backlash of a more profound drop in Tesla stock. Musky boy has no interest in Twitter beyond using it as a bot farm to prop up his meme stock.

You really are the dumbest person to ever connect to the internet.

Elon Musk says $44 billion Twitter deal can't proceed until CEO proves the platform has fewer than 5% fake accounts

Elon Musk said his Twitter buyout can't proceed without evidence the platform has less than 5% fake accounts.

"My offer was based on Twitter's SEC filings being accurate," Musk tweeted Tuesday.

Analysts have suggested Musk is trying to reduce the price of his $44 billion offer for Twitter.

Elon Musk said Tuesday his proposed $44 billion Twitter buyout can't move forward until Twitter's CEO provides proof the platform has fewer than 5% fake accounts.

"My offer was based on Twitter's SEC filings being accurate," Musk tweeted.

Musk announced Friday he was putting his Twitter deal "on hold" while assessing how the company calculates the proportion of fake accounts it harbors. In a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing, Twitter says that fewer than 5% of accounts on its platform are fake.

Musk said Tuesday: "20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher." Musk did not detail how he arrived at the 20% figure.

He added: "Yesterday, Twitter's CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%. This deal cannot move forward until he does."

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on Monday posted a thread on Twitter explaining why Musk's earlier suggestion of sampling 100 random accounts to determine the proportion of fake ones wouldn't work. Musk responded to Agrawal's post with a poop emoji.

Agrawal said in his thread that Twitter's estimate of what proportion of accounts are spam was based on "multiple human reviews (in replicate) of thousands of accounts." He said Twitter's internal teams randomly sampled accounts the company considered to be "monetizable daily active users."

It's possible Musk is using his professed concern over fake accounts as a pretext to force Twitter back to the negotiating table and get a better price for his deal.

On Monday, Musk told the All In Summit in Miami that renegotiating his Twitter deal to a lower price wouldn't be "out of the question," Bloomberg reported.



https://i.imgur.com/tT8vquq.png (https://twitter.com/Teslarati/status/1526362455680909313)


https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter-deal-frozen-ceo-shows-proof-of-spam-2022-5



Do you think if you try really really hard that you could make it through just one day without being the stupidest person on the internet?

[Parkbandit]

Speaking of back pedaling, Elon Musk is already trying to find his way out of the deal without hitting a massive penalty. It's clear to most endless that he just used it as an excuse to sell his own stock without the immediate backlash of a more profound drop in Tesla stock. Musky boy has no interest in Twitter beyond using it as a bot farm to prop up his meme stock.

How.Are.You.Always.The.Dumbest.Poster.In.Any.Given .Thread.?.

[Suppressed Poet]

Not defending Seran, but when I listened to the whole news story on my way to work I wondered to myself if Musk’s actual grievance is truly with the % of bot users, or if he is having second thoughts about buying it at $54.20 a share when the stock has been tanking lately. I think it closed below $38 yesterday if I remember correctly. Anywho…I’m no genius billionaire like Musk but it seems like that’s a massive premium on the market price and could very well be a bad financial decision in this current economic market.

I have no dog in this race other than I like what Musk has said about free speech and his plans for Twitter.

[Seran]

@Methais you rush to accept as fact that Elon Musk insists 20% of accounts are bots, while clearly overlooking the caveat in the article he doesn't substantiate that figure. Musky wants to run Twitter, give people the write to say whatever the fuck they want, which clearly he's been guilty of via an SEC charge he manipulated his stock via Twitter. Sure, Elon Musk is a subject matter expert of using bots to manipulate his own stock price, but I trust the company with the actual data. Not Elon Fucking Musk

[Parkbandit]

Not defending Seran, but when I listened to the whole news story on my way to work I wondered to myself if Musk’s actual grievance is truly with the % of bot users, or if he is having second thoughts about buying it at $54.20 a share when the stock has been tanking lately. I think it closed below $38 yesterday if I remember correctly. Anywho…I’m no genius billionaire like Musk but it seems like that’s a massive premium on the market price and could very well be a bad financial decision in this current economic market.

I have no dog in this race other than I like what Musk has said about free speech and his plans for Twitter.

Is a social media company worth more with 5% bots or 20% bots or 40% bots?

[Parkbandit]

@Methais you rush to accept as fact that Elon Musk insists 20% of accounts are bots, while clearly overlooking the caveat in the article he doesn't substantiate that figure. Musky wants to run Twitter, give people the write to say whatever the fuck they want, which clearly he's been guilty of via an SEC charge he manipulated his stock via Twitter. Sure, Elon Musk is a subject matter expert of using bots to manipulate his own stock price, but I trust the company with the actual data. Not Elon Fucking Musk

All Musk is asking for is evidence that there is only 5% bots on Twitter, as Twitter has claimed repeatedly.

And they haven't.

Because it's probably closer to 25-40% and that would open themselves up to a lawsuit from advertisers who paid Twitter 5 BILLION dollars last year based upon the number of the people on it.

[Shaps]

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/local/report-average-price-of-gas-reaches-all-time-high-in-the-us/77-518f809e-2dc4-4cbb-8fca-c3782daf9ece#:~:text=For%20the%20third%20consecuti ve%20week,ago%2C%20according%20to%20GasBuddy%20dat a.&text=This%20beats%20out%20the%20previous,%244.350% 2Fgal%20on%20March%2010.

"Report: Average price of gas reaches all-time high in the U.S."

Remember when some on here (I won't call them out by name, that would just be rude) was espousing Biden's amazing handling of the energy crisis and how his release of strategic oil reserves was making progress?

I remember... LOL.

[Methais]

@Methais you rush to accept as fact that Elon Musk insists 20% of accounts are bots, while clearly overlooking the caveat in the article he doesn't substantiate that figure. Musky wants to run Twitter, give people the write to say whatever the fuck they want, which clearly he's been guilty of via an SEC charge he manipulated his stock via Twitter. Sure, Elon Musk is a subject matter expert of using bots to manipulate his own stock price, but I trust the company with the actual data. Not Elon Fucking Musk

I'm barely even paying attention to what's happening with any of that. However, it can't be denied by any reasonable person that 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of anything you say is wrong and extremely stupid, so one can pretty much never go wrong by assuming the opposite of anything you say is what the actual truth is.

Though it does sound shady that the current CEO is apparently refusing to show his so called proof that Twitter bots don't exceed 5%, especially since it would make Elon look pretty stupid after. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why not?


Musky wants to run Twitter, give people the write to say

How and why does your writing ability continually devolve to elementary school special ed though? At this rate, you'll be spelling "cat" with a K by the weekend.

I also have one more question....what does abstinence mean, and how are republicans blocking it?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Maybe if we talk about how bots are replacing actual human eyes thus tipping the scale for Twitter, Seran will take notice.

[Seran]

All Musk is asking for is evidence that there is only 5% bots on Twitter, as Twitter has claimed repeatedly.

And they haven't.

Because it's probably closer to 25-40% and that would open themselves up to a lawsuit from advertisers who paid Twitter 5 BILLION dollars last year based upon the number of the people on it.

Twitter: 5% of our monetized users may be bots.
Elon: Your numbers are wrong, I don't have proof.
Twitter: We've already filed with the SEC, no.
Elon: But I really really need proof for my eventual lawsuit to avoid paying contract severance damages.
Twitter: We're not giving you free discovery based on your unsubstantiated claims.
Conservative Players Corner: Wah, Elon Musk deserves information he's not entitled to. Wah

[Gelston]

Twitter: 5% of our monetized users may be bots.
Elon: Your numbers are wrong, I don't have proof.
Twitter: We've already filed with the SEC, no.
Elon: But I really really need proof for my eventual lawsuit to avoid paying contract severance damages.
Twitter: We're not giving you free discovery based on your unsubstantiated claims.
Conservative Players Corner: Wah, Elon Musk deserves information he's not entitled to. Wah

In the future when you buy a product, remember not to expect any information about it except what is on the box.

[Seran]

In the future when you buy a product, remember not to expect any information about it except what is on the box.

You've got it. But Musk hasn't bought Twitter, what you mean is:

"Next time you request to buy something, demand schematics and process control details from the manufacturer."

[Gelston]

You've got it. But Musk hasn't bought Twitter, what you mean is:

"Next time you request to buy something, demand schematics and process control details from the manufacturer."

This is closer to buying a house. They've accepted his offer, but aren't allowing in building inspectors before closing.

[Suppressed Poet]

Is a social media company worth more with 5% bots or 20% bots or 40% bots?

Right. Not disputing that at all.

I’m just saying that he might be (pure speculation) leveraging that point for ulterior motives to either renegotiate the sale price or back out of the deal entirely. The outlook on stocks is rather bearish with rising interest rates and our current economic situation. The share price of twitter has fallen significantly since he struck the deal at $54.20 per share.

Regardless…I’m curious to learn just how many bots really are on Twitter.

[Suppressed Poet]

Twitter: 5% of our monetized users may be bots.
Elon: Your numbers are wrong, I don't have proof.
Twitter: We've already filed with the SEC, no.
Elon: But I really really need proof for my eventual lawsuit to avoid paying contract severance damages.
Twitter: We're not giving you free discovery based on your unsubstantiated claims.
Conservative Players Corner: Wah, Elon Musk deserves information he's not entitled to. Wah

He absolutely deserves that information seeing as the owners have agreed to sell it to him... Why in the world would you think he is not entitled to that?

[Tgo01]

What "proof" has Twitter provided exactly? All they have ever said is that they have conducted research and found fewer than 5% of their active users are bots.

EVERY investor deserves to know exactly how many accounts are bots, and especially the person buying the company deserves to know how many accounts are bots and how exactly the company arrived at that figure.

Seran, you don't have to be the dumbest person in every thread. You can take a break and let the other racist alt-leftists have their time in the sun for a while.

[Parkbandit]

Twitter: 5% of our monetized users may be bots.
Elon: Your numbers are wrong, I don't have proof.
Twitter: We've already filed with the SEC, no.
Elon: But I really really need proof for my eventual lawsuit to avoid paying contract severance damages.
Twitter: We're not giving you free discovery based on your unsubstantiated claims.
Conservative Players Corner: Wah, Elon Musk deserves information he's not entitled to. Wah

It's obvious you've never made a large purchase in your entire life... otherwise you would know how fucking stupid you sound right now.

[Parkbandit]

Right. Not disputing that at all.

I’m just saying that he might be (pure speculation) leveraging that point for ulterior motives to either renegotiate the sale price or back out of the deal entirely. The outlook on stocks is rather bearish with rising interest rates and our current economic situation. The share price of twitter has fallen significantly since he struck the deal at $54.20 per share.

Regardless…I’m curious to learn just how many bots really are on Twitter.

Honestly, he might be. No idea.

I just don't believe a thing that anyone from Twitter claims.

If they admit to 5% bots.. it's probably more like 55%

[Seran]

This is closer to buying a house. They've accepted his offer, but aren't allowing in building inspectors before closing.

That's not even remotely accurate a comparison because there's no right to inspection. No more aptly this is somebody who decided to buy a car, paid a large deposit and sign a contract and then heard a rumor that another make and model had an issue and then decided to claim the dealership was haunted as an excuse to get out of the sale.

[Seran]

He absolutely deserves that information seeing as the owners have agreed to sell it to him... Why in the world would you think he is not entitled to that?

Because business transactions don't allow access to trade secrets, formulations, schematics, or copyrighted materials before the transaction goes through. It's a publicly traded company, and all of the required disclosures and financials are filed with the SEC. Musk is trying to make up a problem with no proof whatsoever

[Seran]

Musk is that kid who screams for six months to go on a Disney cruise and then melts down the moment board the ship because you can't prove sharks can't claim from the ocean and into the bath tub.

[Gelston]

That's not even remotely accurate a comparison because there's no right to inspection. No more aptly this is somebody who decided to buy a car, paid a large deposit and sign a contract and then heard a rumor that another make and model had an issue and then decided to claim the dealership was haunted as an excuse to get out of the sale.

Imagine being this anti consumer.

[Suppressed Poet]

Because business transactions don't allow access to trade secrets, formulations, schematics, or copyrighted materials before the transaction goes through. It's a publicly traded company, and all of the required disclosures and financials are filed with the SEC. Musk is trying to make up a problem with no proof whatsoever

I suspect you wouldn’t know this, but there is a common document that two parties sign when discussing a business dealing of this nature. It’s called a mutual non-disclosure agreement.

[Seran]

I suspect you wouldn’t know this, but there is a common document that two parties sign when discussing a business dealing of this nature. It’s called a mutual non-disclosure agreement.

Uh huh. One of the richest men in the world, infamous for his lack of filter and under multiple charges for posting shit online he shouldn't, you think any business has a vested interest in provide confidential business information to a guy trying to wriggle out of a contract? No. Nor do they owe him any sort of due diligence to investigate Musky's baseless claims.

[Seran]

Oh look, another one term MAGA Conservative. Guess this is what happens when you're a dick hole in office.


RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — First-term U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn lost his Republican primary race Tuesday to state Sen. Chuck Edwards, after the pro-Donald Trump firebrand’s personal and political blunders translated into voter unhappiness.

Cawthorn called Edwards to concede the 11th Congressional District primary to Edwards, Cawthorn campaign spokesperson Luke Ball told The Associated Press. The AP later called the race for Edwards over Cawthorn and six other Republican candidates.

[Seran]

Haha, looks like the AP figured out the same thing the rest of us have.


Musk wars with Twitter over his buyout deal - on Twitter

Tesla CEO Elon Musk promised that taking over Twitter would enable him to rid the social media platform of its annoying “spam bots.” Now he’s arguing — without presenting any evidence — that there might be just too many of those automated accounts for the $44 billion deal to move ahead.

The sharp turnaround by the world’s richest man makes little sense except as a method to scuttle or renegotiate a deal that’s becoming increasingly costly for him, experts said. And while such hardball tactics aren’t uncommon in corporate mergers, the way this is playing out — in a highly public, seemingly erratic conversation on the very platform Musk wants to buy — has little precedent.

Which means that Musk is negotiating the future of Twitter ... on Twitter.

It’s increasingly clear that Musk realizes his offer was too high and is looking for a way “to potentially walk away or negotiate the price down,” said Brian Quinn, an associate law professor at Boston College.


Early Tuesday, Musk tweeted that his deal to buy the company can’t “move forward” unless the company shows public proof that fewer than 5% of the accounts on the social media platform are fake or spam bots. That followed Musk’s Friday tweet that the deal was on hold pending more bot details — after which Twitter shares plunged by nearly 10% — and his Monday comments at a Miami conference suggesting he wanted a lower price for the company.


None of that makes sense, Quinn said. Not only has Twitter disclosed the uncertainty of its estimates for years, he said, “the company gave him the opportunity to engage in due diligence and kick the tires and look around.” Musk did not take up that offer.

Not only did he already have the opportunity to prove himself wrong, but he's publicly throwing a MAGA style temper tantrum demanding Twitter publicly refute it's own disclosed finds. Lol. Fake news!!!

[Velfi]

https://i.imgur.com/6QSWfEY.jpg

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/audit-backs-elon-musk-concerns-032746126.html

"New audit backs up Elon Musk’s concerns about fake Twitter accounts"

"“These accounts were randomly selected, by machine, from a set of 130+ million public, active profiles. Our analysis found that 19.42%, nearly four times Twitter’s Q4 2021 estimate, fit a conservative definition of fake or spam accounts (i.e. our analysis likely undercounts).”

"The software firm SparkToro quantified that amount at 49.3 percent of the president’s total Twitter following..."

What was it again... Elon was worried that Twitter lied to the SEC? Ahh who knows, I'm sure Twitter is on the up and up.

[Gelston]

Lol, half of Bidens followers are bots.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2022/05/17/half-of-joe-bidens-twitter-followers-are-fake-audit-reveals/amp/

[Parkbandit]

Lol, half of Bidens followers are bots.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2022/05/17/half-of-joe-bidens-twitter-followers-are-fake-audit-reveals/amp/

So... 5% is spot on.

Sorry I questioned Twitter, Seran.

[Seran]

https://i.imgur.com/6QSWfEY.jpg

Hahaha

[Methais]

That's not even remotely accurate a comparison because there's no right to inspection. No more aptly this is somebody who decided to buy a car, paid a large deposit and sign a contract and then heard a rumor that another make and model had an issue and then decided to claim the dealership was haunted as an excuse to get out of the sale.

This might be the worst analogy I've ever heard in my life.

Big shocker that it came from you.

[Methais]

Musk is that kid who screams for six months to go on a Disney cruise and then melts down the moment board the ship because you can't prove sharks can't claim from the ocean and into the bath tub.

Sharks can't what? What are they claiming?

You're having another stroke aren't you?

Still waiting for you to tell us what "abstinence" is, and what republicans are doing to block it.

Did you realize how retarded you are in a rare moment of self awareness, and that's why you keep ignoring the issue? :rofl:

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxyUeeGceluvsxk3ggF0b-iyVuPOjdwQvh

Protect yourself Tweeps! **in a low whispering voice "and stay silent or suffer!"**

[Parkbandit]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dhs-pauses-scrutinized-disinformation-group-review-slams-gross/story?id=84808464

Sorry.. we went through this once back in the 40's in Germany.. and it didn't work out very well then.

[Seran]

Looks like Elon Musk is joining the ranks of powerful men who believe it entitles them to use their employees as they see fit. No wonder he's such a good friend of Donald Trump.

Space XXX as Drudge put it is right!


A SpaceX flight attendant said Elon Musk exposed himself and propositioned her for sex, documents show. The company paid $250,000 for her silence.

SpaceX, the aerospace firm founded by Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man, paid a flight attendant $250,000 to settle a sexual misconduct claim against Musk in 2018, Insider has learned.

The attendant worked as a member of the cabin crew on a contract basis for SpaceX's corporate jet fleet. She accused Musk of exposing his erect penis to her, rubbing her leg without consent, and offering to buy her a horse in exchange for an erotic massage, according to interviews and documents obtained by Insider.

"He whipped out his penis, it was erect," the friend said, describing the allegations. "And he started propositioning her, like he touched her thigh and told her he would buy her a horse. And he basically tried to bribe her to perform some sort of sexual favor."

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-paid-250000-to-a-flight-attendant-who-accused-elon-musk-of-sexual-misconduct-2022-5

[Methais]

Looks like Elon Musk is joining the ranks of powerful men who believe it entitles them to use their employees as they see fit. No wonder he's such a good friend of Donald Trump.

Space XXX as Drudge put it is right!



https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-paid-250000-to-a-flight-attendant-who-accused-elon-musk-of-sexual-misconduct-2022-5

Right on schedule, just like everyone with a functional brain expected as soon as he announced he was voting republican.

[Seran]

Does voting Republican make you immune to being accountable for your actions? Because I don't think anybody share that memo with Madison Cawthorn. He was talking about getting the Dark MAGA empowered. Could you talk to your conservative bodies and tell us what Dark MAGA is

[Methais]

Does voting Republican make you immune to being accountable for your actions?

That only applies to democrats.


Because I don't think anybody share that memo with Madison Cawthorn. He was talking about getting the Dark MAGA empowered. Could you talk to your conservative bodies and tell us what Dark MAGA is

https://i.imgur.com/USWhfb3.png


Could you stop ignoring the question and tell us what "abstinence" is, and how republicans are blocking it? Since you know, you said republicans are trying to block abstinence and all that.

Any reason why you keep ignoring this question?

[Gelston]

Remember, he was a Democrat back when he did that.

[Suppressed Poet]

Does voting Republican make you immune to being accountable for your actions? Because I don't think anybody share that memo with Madison Cawthorn. He was talking about getting the Dark MAGA empowered. Could you talk to your conservative bodies and tell us what Dark MAGA is

Dark MAGA is what Biden calls African Americans that didn’t vote for him. They ain’t black.

[Methais]

Dark MAGA is what Biden calls African Americans that didn’t vote for him. They ain’t black.

He calls them these when the cameras are off:

https://i.imgur.com/MEuuppj.png

[Parkbandit]

Does voting Republican make you immune to being accountable for your actions?

No, being Democrat usually does.

The day Musk claimed he was now going to vote Republican, this story came to light.

Not even you can believe that is a coincidence.

Because no one could be that fucking stupid.

[Seran]

Dark MAGA is what Biden calls African Americans that didn’t vote for him. They ain’t black.

Oh wow. Why would Madison Cawthorn, the BROist of Team MAGA be calling for Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green to join him in the Dark MAGA revolution then, because those folks are as white conservative as they come.

And I'm serious, this dude is such a Chad, that even after that video came out of him naked, face fucking his cousin-husband, Trump STILL supported him. Which come to think of it, Trump support probably cost him his job.

Anyway, what were we talking about again? Conservatives pushing white replacement theory into the school curriculum in Florida. That's bad.

[Seran]

I'm tickled that Republicans are so aware of just how wrong and corrupt their actions are that they're able to detail the ramifications of their actions. I mean wow, imagine being so hyper aware of the law, that after asking an employee for a happy ending, while flying on a company jet, that you actually could foretell it would one day be used against him. Elongate!

[Parkbandit]

I'm tickled that Republicans are so aware of just how wrong and corrupt their actions are that they're able to detail the ramifications of their actions. I mean wow, imagine being so hyper aware of the law, that after asking an employee for a happy ending, while flying on a company jet, that you actually could foretell it would one day be used against him. Elongate!

1) Elon Musk was a Democrat when this happened.
2) I hope the woman who was paid 250K signed a NDA and has violated it.
3) I stand corrected: you are literally that fucking stupid.