Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
3634 replies to this topic

#3621 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,117 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted Yesterday, 09:59 PM

Modern science could determine when "life" begins in the wombs, but that would be inconvenient to the abortion movement. I suspect most people in the middle would support abortion in the first trimester, but oppose it in the 3rd, figuring out where in the 2nd to draw the line would likely be science based. Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  


  • 0

#3622 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted Yesterday, 10:05 PM

Modern science could determine when "life" begins in the wombs, but that would be inconvenient to the abortion movement. I suspect most people in the middle would support abortion in the first trimester, but oppose it in the 3rd, figuring out where in the 2nd to draw the line would likely be science based. Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  

 

I'm pro abortion within reason, but the liars who argue it is not life in the womb are the worst kind of people. At least have the guts to be honest about what you support. 


  • 0

#3623 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,741 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted Yesterday, 10:24 PM

Modern science could determine when "life" begins in the wombs, but that would be inconvenient to the abortion movement. I suspect most people in the middle would support abortion in the first trimester, but oppose it in the 3rd, figuring out where in the 2nd to draw the line would likely be science based. Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  


It would be equally "inconvenient" to the pro-life movement who think human life begins at the moment of conception.
  • 0

#3624 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,741 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted Yesterday, 10:27 PM


Modern science could determine when "life" begins in the wombs, but that would be inconvenient to the abortion movement. I suspect most people in the middle would support abortion in the first trimester, but oppose it in the 3rd, figuring out where in the 2nd to draw the line would likely be science based. Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  

 
I'm pro abortion within reason, but the liars who argue it is not life in the womb are the worst kind of people. At least have the guts to be honest about what you support. 

Any two cells together is life. The question you are not adressing is life vs HUMAN life.
  • 0

#3625 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,926 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted Yesterday, 11:27 PM

 Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  

Not only zero scientific basis, but nebulous and arbitrary.  Is there a fundamental difference between a baby in the womb and a one hour old baby that can't feed itself let alone maintain its own body temperature?  While no longer the "parasite" within, the post-natal baby is still very much a parasite.

 

Going a bit off on a tangent, many many governments levels around the world have stated that if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is to be charged with two murders, giving legal credence to the fact that once conceived a fetus is in fact a human life.  Tangled webs and the deceptions thereof.


  • 0

#3626 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,926 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted Yesterday, 11:32 PM

Changing the subject entirely, the latest pronouncements regarding North Korea, should they bare out, should surely mean Donald Trump is the prohibitive favorite for the next Nobel Peace Prize, yes?


  • 0

#3627 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Novichok is the New Black

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 44,064 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Today, 03:04 AM

'And the Nobel prize for services to Twitter, goes to...'


  • 0

#3628 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,318 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted Today, 03:34 AM

 

It seems a perfectly logical position. If abortion is murder, then aborting children conceived through rape is as much murder as any other abortion. If that's OK, then the moral case for opposing abortion is very much weakened.


At what stage does a conglomeration of cells become a child? I do not buy that human life begins at conception. That is purely in the realm of the supernatural.

 

 

That is a fact, because the first cell is enough to become a human being. Abortion is murder and should be judged as such.


  • 0

#3629 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted Today, 08:12 AM

Changing the subject entirely, the latest pronouncements regarding North Korea, should they bare out, should surely mean Donald Trump is the prohibitive favorite for the next Nobel Peace Prize, yes?

 

Yes or no, but surely more qualified than Obama was.


  • 0

#3630 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,722 posts

Posted Today, 08:35 AM

 

 

 


 

As soon as they make a prenatal test to determine if a baby is likely gay or "trans", their position on abortion will do a 180. Cant have people aborting gay babies because they are gay. 

 

 

Right, a women has an absolute right to control her own body...unless the choices they are making clashes with their leftist inclusionary ideology...

 


  • 0

#3631 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,741 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted Today, 09:04 AM



 


 
 

 
As soon as they make a prenatal test to determine if a baby is likely gay or "trans", their position on abortion will do a 180. Cant have people aborting gay babies because they are gay. 
 

 
Right, a women has an absolute right to control her own body...unless the choices they are making clashes with their leftist inclusionary ideology...
 

No nothing is "absolute" and aborting a pregnancy because the baby might be gay is only violating "leftist" ideology?
  • 0

#3632 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,722 posts

Posted Today, 10:15 AM

A women's right to choose is an absolute right that does or does not exist, and within the medical guidelines of when an abortion is legal, there can be no exceptions whatsoever to the principle of a women having sovereignty over her own body.   Full stop.


Edited by glenn239, Today, 10:15 AM.

  • 0

#3633 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,439 posts

Posted Today, 11:36 AM

 

 Everyone walks away unhappy, you have done your job as a legislator. In Canada, the current definition is when the baby can sustain life outside the mum, ancient and "legally neat" but zero science basis, just convenience.  

Not only zero scientific basis, but nebulous and arbitrary.  Is there a fundamental difference between a baby in the womb and a one hour old baby that can't feed itself let alone maintain its own body temperature?  While no longer the "parasite" within, the post-natal baby is still very much a parasite.

 

Going a bit off on a tangent, many many governments levels around the world have stated that if a pregnant woman is killed, the killer is to be charged with two murders, giving legal credence to the fact that once conceived a fetus is in fact a human life.  Tangled webs and the deceptions thereof.

 

And the science keeps changing. As neonatal care has improved, the age of viability of an unborn child keeps getting younger. How do you pass a law that uses viability as the legal standard when that is a grey area that is continually changing?


  • 0

#3634 Mr King

Mr King

    Major Washout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,808 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of corn syrup and fake breasts
  • Interests:Odds and Ends

Posted Today, 01:51 PM

A women's right to choose is an absolute right that does or does not exist, and within the medical guidelines of when an abortion is legal, there can be no exceptions whatsoever to the principle of a women having sovereignty over her own body.   Full stop.

 

No you don't understand. Paul's morals trumps a woman's right to choose, because Paul's morals are superior, unlike others who seek to impose their morals on women. Because when Paul does it, it is totally different. 


  • 0

#3635 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted Today, 02:24 PM

To steer this back to His Trumpness
 
 

Trump lied to me about his wealth to get onto the Forbes 400. Here are the tapes.(WaPo)


 

In May 1984, an official from the Trump Organization called to tell me how rich Donald J. Trump was. I was reporting for the Forbes 400, the magazine’s annual ranking of America’s richest people, for the third year. In the previous edition, we’d valued Trump’s holdings at $200 million, only one-fifth of what he claimed to own in our interviews. This time, his aide urged me on the phone, I needed to understand just how loaded Trump really was.

The official was John Barron — a name we now know as an alter ego of Trump himself. When I recently rediscovered and listened, for first time since that year, to the tapes I made of this and other phone calls, I was amazed that I didn’t see through the ruse: Although Trump altered some cadences and affected a slightly stronger New York accent, it was clearly him. “Barron” told me that Trump had taken possession of the business he ran with his father, Fred. “Most of the assets have been consolidated to Mr. Trump,” he said. “You have down Fred Trump [as half owner] . . . but I think you can really use Donald Trump now.” Trump, through this sockpuppet, was telling me he owned “in excess of 90 percent” of his family’s business. With all the home runs Trump was hitting in real estate, Barron told me, he should be called a billionaire.

At the time, I suspected that some of this was untrue. I ran Trump’s assertions to the ground, and for many years I was proud of the fact that Forbes had called him on his distortions and based his net worth on what I thought was solid research.

But it took decades to unwind the elaborate farce Trump had enacted to project an image as one of the richest people in America. Nearly every assertion supporting that claim was untrue. Trump wasn’t just poorer than he said he was. Over time, I have learned that he should not have been on the first three Forbes 400 lists at all. In our first-ever list, in 1982, we included him at $100 million, but Trump was actually worth roughly $5 million — a paltry sum by the standards of his super-monied peers — as a spate of government reports and books showed only much later.

The White House declined to comment for this story. The Trump Organization did not respond to a request for comment.

I was a determined 25-year-old reporter, and I thought that, by reeling Trump back from some of his more outrageous claims, I’d done a public service and exposed the truth. But his confident deceptions were so big that they had an unexpected effect: Instead of believing that they were outright fabrications, my Forbes colleagues and I saw them simply as vain embellishments on the truth. We were so wrong.

This was a model Trump would use for the rest of his career, telling a lie so cosmic that people believed that some kernel of it had to be real. The tactic landed him a place he hadn’t earned on the Forbes list — and led to future accolades, press coverage and deals. It eventually paved a path toward the presidency.
(...)

 
 
Trump is a blowfish. Not that we not knew that already.  I wonder if he still makes phone calls and poses as someone else?

Edited by Panzermann, Today, 02:28 PM.

  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users