Russia Investigation Heating Up

[Androidpk]

0 american or allied lives would be lost by dropping a nuke in the middle of the desert. How many American and allied lives have been lost in this 17 year old pussyfoot quagmire? Don't think for a moment that mine, like most everyone else's families, haven't suffered losses.

Was your mouth too full of Obama dick to call him out for the mass bombings? or is it that death by radiation is more scary than death by 1000 pound bombs. Obama certainly never served, why the dick sucking?

I just want to see an enemy body count so high that they stop the terrorist attacks, I don't care how it's accomplished. I certainly prefer whatever is the best way to do it while saving as many American and allied lives as possible. Or just come home.

You are a national embarrassment.

[Neveragain]

See, this is exactly what I mean by you not understanding my posts. I've never said we should just "let go" what they've done. Saying you should let go of your hate isn't the same as saying you should just roll over and die. Unless you think hate is the only thing sustaining you, which would be quite the sad existence.

You keep wanting to jerk off over word usage. In my first reply I acknowledged that a better word could have been used but that I could not muster a word that comes so closely to hate.

I think the point I was making is pretty easily understood. If we're not willing to destroy our enemy then don't go to fucking war.

[Neveragain]

You are a national embarrassment.

I'll take that as a compliment coming from a guy with your record.

Just continue to supporting killing the terrorist babies.

[Neveragain]

When a baby mistakenly walks into a room full of Democrats.

[drauz]

When a baby mistakenly walks into a room full of Democrats.

When Neveragain walks into a NAACP meeting instead of the Klan rally.

[Ashliana]

Pretty standard reply for the baby killers.

You've uncritically accepted -- and internalized -- arguments that are so poorly reasoned they fall apart the second they're considered, which makes your earlier claims of your "trust in science that provides (you) with the evidence" supposedly backing your claims especially comical.

Science doesn't back up any of your contentious positions. If you want to reduce the number of abortions -- a goal that everybody supposedly shares -- your most effective tools, science shows, are:

1) Comprehensive sex education
2) Reducing wealth inequality and increasing higher education access for women
3) Increasing family planning / contraceptive access to young women

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that restrictions or a prohibition of abortion reduces the abortion rate. All restrictive laws do is force women to undergo riskier procedures that endanger the lives you claim to be concerned with.

Who knew that approaching topics you claim to care about with a sub-Fox News mentality and committing to reductionist thinking to the degree of pointlessness would result in you being totally uninformed?

[Wrathbringer]

You've uncritically accepted -- and internalized -- arguments that are so poorly reasoned they fall apart the second they're considered, which makes your earlier claims of your "trust in science that provides (you) with the evidence" supposedly backing your claims especially comical.

Science doesn't back up any of your contentious positions. If you want to reduce the number of abortions -- a goal that everybody supposedly shares -- your most effective tools, science shows, are:

1) Comprehensive sex education
2) Reducing wealth inequality and increasing higher education access for women
3) Increasing family planning / contraceptive access to young women

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that restrictions or a prohibition of abortion reduces the abortion rate. All restrictive laws do is force women to undergo riskier procedures that endanger the lives you claim to be concerned with.

Who knew that approaching topics you claim to care about with a sub-Fox News mentality and committing to reductionist thinking to the degree of pointlessness would result in you being totally uninformed?

You're retarded.

[Neveragain]

You've uncritically accepted -- and internalized -- arguments that are so poorly reasoned they fall apart the second they're considered, which makes your earlier claims of your "trust in science that provides (you) with the evidence" supposedly backing your claims especially comical.

Science doesn't back up any of your contentious positions. If you want to reduce the number of abortions -- a goal that everybody supposedly shares -- your most effective tools, science shows, are:

1) Comprehensive sex education
2) Reducing wealth inequality and increasing higher education access for women
3) Increasing family planning / contraceptive access to young women

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that restrictions or a prohibition of abortion reduces the abortion rate. All restrictive laws do is force women to undergo riskier procedures that endanger the lives you claim to be concerned with.

Who knew that approaching topics you claim to care about with a sub-Fox News mentality and committing to reductionist thinking to the degree of pointlessness would result in you being totally uninformed?

So you should have no problem supporting legislation that protects a human being in the womb as an individual?

One would think people that have compassion for children being shot up in schools would show that same compassion for children being killed in the womb and not you know, raise money to kill more children.

[Ashliana]

You're retarded.

If quoting NIH, Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine and the World Health Organization/UN makes one "retarded" in the eyes of a complete troglodyte incapable of critical reasoning, so be it.

But, as always:

[Neveragain]

Neveragain's first child