HeloDude

Are you full up supportive of the Libertarian Party and it’s platform now? If so, jump in, the water is definitely warm. If not, then your argument based on personal freedom is quite selective.

You originally made an argument that society would judge people more harshly for having a baby and giving it up for adoption vs having an abortion. And you didn’t provide any examples other than some personal opinions on what “could happen”. By the way, would your parents and in-laws be “WTF, you have up your baby for adoption instead of just having an abortion?” So let’s try again…do you really believe abortion is a better and more approved societal option to an unwanted pregnancy vs giving up the unwanted baby for adoption?

Do you really believe this? Outside of the government financial welfare benefits, what is this “societal pressure” against giving a newborn baby you don’t want up for adoption? Can you provide some examples?

Really dude? That’s your response? By that same logic, an argument can be made that we should allow zero immigration (legal or illegal) because there are some immigrants who murder American citizens. Let me know one person on this page who have have advocated for blowing up an abortion clinic. Likewise, let me know how many abortion clinics have been blown up in the last 20 years compared to the number of abortions in that same time period. You can be against abortion and not be for blowing up clinics…hence why very few have blown up, but let me know what you find. Again, I’m all for going full Libertarian Party platform (link below) if that’s what you and the others are advocating? But until then, let the states decide if it’s not addressed in the Constitution. https://www.lp.org/platform/

Well, pregnant women who want abortions usually get one, and if they don’t, they then have a newborn. So it’s kind of hard to discuss one without the other. Unless you’re suggesting that a pregnant woman…who wanted an abortion, but somehow couldn’t get one, decided to then not give her baby up for adoption, but then later ran into problems, is now the fault of the government for not allowing her to have an abortion? Perhaps the left could be more pro-adoption along with being pro-abortion?

And here you go…I literally said this was the one argument that was complete BS, and you just made it. I have zero problems with the argument that someone should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, because it’s a valid argument to make, regardless of my personal/moral opinions on abortion. But…suggesting that abortion is necessary because unwanted newborns will not be adopted is a flat out lie. There is a long waiting list for adoptions of newborn children…and yes, that goes for non-white babies as well.

The left literally now says that men can also have abortions…

Actually, I’m very correct. States might choose to ban abortion, but the ruling itself will not. Someone can still go to California and get all the tax-payer funded abortions they want. CH, take a look at my most recent post above—if the country wants to go full blown Libertarian, then I’m on board. Until then, it has to be a States’ Rights issue unless it’s specifically pro/against in the Constitution. Slavery, can’t do it. Banning guns, can’t do it. Keeping women from voting, can’t do it. Drugs? Abortion? And a long list of other issues…States’ Rights. But as usual, for 90% of the country it comes down to “Liberty for me but not for thee”.

Isn’t it though? Let me clarify—the left would have a much better argument of saying they’re for individual rights, if well, they actually were. Please do not at all take this as defending the right. As I’ve said plenty fo times before on this forum, if the argument for preserving abortion is because we want to exercise individual liberty to the maximum (and assuming we have no regard for an unborn child), then I can accept that argument. But that’s not what the left (or right) is about. So until then, the best thing is for more laws handled at the state level and not the federal level. Don’t forget, this ruling won’t ban abortion at all. So yeah…pretty…uhhh…rich.

Your points aren’t invalid…but the current process/system isn’t working either. So again, this one foot in, one foot out, challenge every new law at the federal level (even though Roe said the states could regulate abortion but just not ban it), the argument that you can do whatever you want with your own bodies unless it has to do with drugs or a covid shot, on and on…at some point, we need a better system. And The Constitution actually provides it—changing Roe just gets us back closer to it, regardless of whether or not you’re for or against the legality of abortion. But now to address the bigger elephant in the room—here it goes: We’re so divided as a country right now that one can ask why we’re even a country. States’ Rights are continuously taking a back seat to an ever growing federal government. If the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t like the upcoming change, then perhaps they should stop trying to dictate how everyone else in the country wants to live their life. I like making the Libertarian Party’s arguments, but then people here call me “weird” or “out of touch”…but then are cool with unborn child being killed the moment before it exits the womb.

Appears that SCOTUS will overturn Roe and send the abortion legality back to the individual states. And unless abortion is to be legal everywhere up until the moment of birth, regardless of the reason, then this is the best COA. This one foot in, one foot out in a majority of the states (due to to Roe) was absurd when you remove the emotions for or against it…not to mention the constant legal challenges at the federal level. This ruling will send it back to the individual states, where it needs to belong. And if the left wants any woman (or man?) to be able to have an abortion at anytime, for any reason, then they can donate to groups that will accommodate transportation to one of those states. Or, people can move if they dislike it so much…and before someone says “people can’t just move”, look at how many people with hardly anything move from South and Central America to the US (most often times illegally) for a better life. So yes, they can move if they really want to. My biggest gripe with the pro-choice/abortion crowd is that one of their many arguments is that if abortion is to be made illegal/heavily restricted then there would be all these new born babies in unwanted homes…which is clearly not true. The adoption waitlist, regardless of ethnic/racial background and gender, is far from short. If your argument is that a woman should be able to decide what to do with her pregnancy then we can have that debate, but I hate hearing their lies about unwanted babies.

Ummm…I was commenting on her acting skills. Though it sounds like there was a lot of acting done during this scene.

Here’s my issue with Kinzinger: I don’t have a problem if you’re anti-Trump, even if you’re a Republican. I also don’t have a problem if you believe that 6 Jan was an “insurrection to overturn the election” (lamest insurrection ever if it actually was one lol, so I do question your philosophical bias in that case). My issue is that when Pelosi/Dem leaders set up the “bipartisan” 6 Jan committee but then wouldn’t allow the Republican leadership to choose their members, then it was obvious that this was anything but “bipartisan” and all it was ever going to be is just be a witch-hunt against Trump/his supporters in the House, etc. And when Adam then joined their committee, only because the Dems knew he was against Trump, then he joined the witch-hunt/political theater. If he would have then left the Republican Party to be an independent I would have said he followed his conscience, but he didn’t. The question now is this: Does he know he’s being used by Pelosi? If so, then what does he get out of it? Surely Adam can’t actually believe that the committee is anything but political theater?

Where’s the political benefit in that?

Disinformation…or something. ‘Heroic ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ fighter doesn’t actually exist, Ukraine admits’ https://nypost.com/2022/05/01/heroic-ghost-of-kyiv-fighter-doesnt-actually-exist-ukraine-admits/?fbclid=IwAR1WFX2yfl31FdpZW8saXGvWBNcfocMJ70e3hBCH08l5uD7rDGvM_gT2KE8

Not true…Melora Hardin was great in ‘The Office’!

Iron Eagle wasn’t made with support of the US Air Force…one of the reasons was because the movie is about the stealing an F-16 which the AF didn’t condone. That all being said, the original definitely fell into the realm of an “awesome bad movie” that I used to watch quite a bit on VHS in the late 80s. The 2nd one was much more bad than awesome and I refused to watch other others since I knew it was downhill from there.

Unfortunately little of this is surprising. When you can’t run on your accomplishments, then you vilify the other side as racists, anti-(whatever letters are now being used), extremists, spreaders of “disinformation”, on and on. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Things need to still get much worse in this country for enough people (60-70%) to see that the trajectory we’re on is going to destroy the country financially. But in the meantime, let’s discuss “free” healthcare, “student loan forgiveness”, refusing to enforce immigration laws/border security, massive federal spending bills (yes, to include “defense” spending), reparations for slavery, banning fracking because we need “green energy”, on and on.

My money is on Pete Buttigieg being their nominee in 2024. He’s the only person who makes sense in the eyes of the left.

It’s bad. What’s also bad is that he said he’s not concerned about a recession following the news of negative economic growth. The midterms will be very interesting…I think it’s obvious that the GOP will have a good night, the question is how good.

And the Dem leader of the Senate says the only way to fight inflation is to “raise” taxes. I’ve been waiting for the start of the economic collapse (2008 style) and it looks like we just might be starting to get there.

The left is likewise saying that this will benefit Disney (and in turn hurt the taxpayers). But if this was good for Disney, then why the uproar against it for those who support Disney being against the latest law? Also, if this is better off for Disney, wouldn’t they have lobbied for this change a long time ago? Progressives crack me up…they say children aren’t being groomed, CRT isn’t being taught in schools, etc…and then they’re upset when laws are passed to prevent what the left says isn’t occurring anyway.

Government always sucks unless they’re trying to get rid of more government (rarely, but occasionally happens). But I expect a business to make decisions based on ultimately increasing profits…not picking and choosing social issues which will hurt profits. So if both Florida and Disney lose then ultimately Disney loses because the government can raise taxes, give tax breaks to different businesses, etc. Just look at California—their government sucks, they’re losing businesses and people are moving out (they even lost a congressional seat for the first time), and yet they’re still doubling down on their nonsense. But to those who say Disney will move completely out of Florida…I guess it does make for a good laugh.

So it looks like Disney is going to lose a lot of money after their “go woke get broke” comments. The question I have is: Did their leadership decide to go all in with leftists talking points, etc because they believe it’s just the right thing to do (regardless of the consequences) or did they really think this would improve their position financially?

What’s one more nail in the coffin?