Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[~Rocktar~]

Still her call. If she decides not to there is nothing the man can do. He should bang some other chick who wants to have a kid with him.



Still her call. Not yours. Not mine. Not the Pope. Not Congress. Her call.

Which brings up the next idiotic point, man and woman have long standing relationship, maybe even married, maybe have kids together already, get pregnant and then late term they have a falling out and mom decides to kill the baby in spite because she listened to her petty ass bestie, so your "man should bang other chick who wants to have a kid with him" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Seriously dude, you have no moral high ground here, not even lowland swamp ground, you are just arguing to end human life of perfectly viable kids. We aren't talking 3 months in here, we are talking 9 months minus 1 second.

Arguing to kill the innocent, what a piece of work the Left has become.

[Back]

Which brings up the next idiotic point, man and woman have long standing relationship, maybe even married, maybe have kids together already, get pregnant and then late term they have a falling out and mom decides to kill the baby in spite because she listened to her petty ass bestie, so your "man should bang other chick who wants to have a kid with him" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Seriously dude, you have no moral high ground here, not even lowland swamp ground, you are just arguing to end human life of perfectly viable kids. We aren't talking 3 months in here, we are talking 9 months minus 1 second.

Arguing to kill the innocent, what a piece of work the Left has become.

I'm not going to say its not fucked up even early term. But the choice, and the burden of that choice, is theirs to make.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm not going to say its not fucked up even early term. But the choice, and the burden of that choice, is theirs to make.

You won't say it because you don't believe it.

If a person sees an infant fall into a river, do they have a responsibility to act? Why or why not?

If a person sees a fire in an abandoned building, should they report it? Why or why not?

I ask these kinds of questions because they speak to personal and social responsibility. You try to insulate yourself from the decision and the outcome of that decision saying that you think it's "fucked up". The fact is, there is no such thing as an innocent bystander in any situation. Either you choose to act and thus directly influence the outcome of the situation for good or bad or you choose to not act and thus accept the outcome however it may come. A choice not to act is still a choice and in this case a tacit approval of the outcome. No matter how you cut it, acceptance of this procedure is tacit approval and at worst, agreement by neglect.

So don't try and play off how terrible it is or how you don't like it as some kind of moral qualifier, you have chosen to tacitly agree with the procedure to murder perfectly viable babies in the womb. May the Divine have mercy on your miserable soul and may the lot of you Leftist/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist piles of human waste never have to live in the world your thoughts, actions and policies seek to make.

[sellstuff1]

[Gelston]

Maybe if you keep posting blurry twitter posts people will take you seriously.

[~Rocktar~]

Maybe if people hadn't spent the last 40 years making outrageous climate predictions about the death of all life on earth then people would take them more seriously. Maybe if the primary researcher in climate change that compiled all the data from all over the world from the 70s on into the early 2000's and then dispersed it to all the other researchers hadn't faked, corrupted, skewed and destroyed the data and when caught doing it admitted that he wanted to use the data to drive income redistribution then people would take it more seriously. Maybe if every plan to try and combat it didn't include a massive income redistribution, world wide welfare and didn't give high end polluters like China and India a pass people might take it more seriously. Maybe if every so called plan didn't include a full on assault and destruction of the Western world while giving the rest of the world a pass people might take it more seriously.

[sellstuff1]

Maybe if people hadn't spent the last 40 years making outrageous climate predictions about the death of all life on earth then people would take them more seriously. Maybe if the primary researcher in climate change that compiled all the data from all over the world from the 70s on into the early 2000's and then dispersed it to all the other researchers hadn't faked, corrupted, skewed and destroyed the data and when caught doing it admitted that he wanted to use the data to drive income redistribution then people would take it more seriously. Maybe if every plan to try and combat it didn't include a massive income redistribution, world wide welfare and didn't give high end polluters like China and India a pass people might take it more seriously. Maybe if every so called plan didn't include a full on assault and destruction of the Western world while giving the rest of the world a pass people might take it more seriously.

You sound pretty triggered over the fact that your kids are going to have lung cancer and won't ever see it snow.

[Parkbandit]

You sound pretty triggered over the fact that your kids are going to have lung cancer and won't ever see it snow.

And this is another example of why your climate change hoax isn't taken seriously.

[~Rocktar~]

You sound pretty triggered over the fact that your kids are going to have lung cancer and won't ever see it snow.

Didn't I just warn about outrageous climate predictions? You just can't help yourself, the stupid is strong in you.

[RichardCranium]

Plus, fuck snow.