BTW, that’s the same dismissive, ignorant, just deny the issue stupidity you tried on the 10 year old rape victim that had to cross state lines to save her own life from the rapist’s spawn growing inside her tiny body.
That didn’t turn out well for your disgusting lying fascist side that’s legislating their (im)morals onto everyone.

Just like then, this is EXACTLY what Texas law is, except for the phone call, because Greg already pre-decided….no abortion is necessary for anyone ever…no exceptions. 9 year old girl raped by dad with a brainless Cronenberg growing inside them, killing them in the process…no abortion. Not if she was raped by satan in an involuntary blood orgy and has the antichrist inside her…she still must carry it to full term.

These are the same people who are trying to turn America into a born again Christian theocracy, want public funds for religious schools (only Christian schools though) who absolutely do not understand this country, freedom, or self determination, or the ban on government respecting an establishment of religion. (Hint, it means 1. there can be no official religion and 2. there can be no law that gives precedent or special treatment to any religion).
This is your team. I’m sure, if Ilhan Oman tried the exact same thing (but with Islam) you would be prepared to burn mosques and madrasas across the nation and deport all Muslims just from the suggestion.

Hee Hee.

It's just good fun. You pretend to know facts, so why not fight mud with mud?

Look, you're answer is no answer. Calling it murder makes you look unconscionably devoid. It has no merit. Also is an insult to the whole matter.

If life - other people's unformed, potential children - matter that much...then why not support Democrats?

They are the only ones seriously taking about national healthcare. NO GOP PLAN - isn't that true?

If you w/the holy staff, want children to be carried to full term, then prenatal care is a necessity. Data shows that the bulk of terminations are single parents with children. As a citizen of the USA, you KNOW that's tough enough. But no guy, no religious fart, that talks about "personal responsibility" yet offers no aid is sewer fodder.

Even adoption is a lie. Poll anyone at your church (if you do that sort of thing and are not independently enlightened) how many have adopted, bet it's not that much...if any.

It's a hard sell, amigo.

But do know there are foreseeable unintended deaths coming because of this bill if left in place - GO DOJ!!! Blissful Bob and his ilk will claim it did no such thing either.

Mean you no ill will (the devil you say) but your intent isn't being served by this notion that banning means solving.

[BTW: do you remember when the state of FL and Jeb Bush lost ~10,000 children in the foster care system? Sometime later he glowingly said they accounted for 99% of them? Meaning 100 kids could have been sex slaves, dead, or dating Matt Gaetz.]

Carter, I think, was really the last president we had that really intended to try to change government. He failed because of numerous outside factors, but he truly was a person who wanted change. I think Obama gave it lip service to get elected, but he really was simply a watered down version of Hilary with a lot more personality.

Sanders I think would have been Carter part deux, and would have struggled for a full term against our failed system before giving up and not running for re-election.

also, *nsfw for some cursing by the commentator.

*quality

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

I, for one, am getting pretty tired of the anti-abortion propaganda.
Pretty sure these people have been found to be unreliable at best, since there's no charge pending.
Stopped watching at the first BS story where she claims she saw full term, live babies killed outside the womb multiple times daily by having their head twisted off their neck with the doctor's bare hands.. There's absolutely no way that's even partially true.

Here's some more information regarding the relative outcomes of planned home birth versus hospital births (in the US):

http://www.mana.org/blog/home-birth-safety-outcomes

"Of particular note is a cesarean rate of 5.2%, a remarkably low rate when compared to the U.S. national average of 31% for full-term pregnancies. When we consider the well-known health consequences of a cesarean -- not to mention the exponentially higher costs -- this study brings a fresh reminder of the benefits of midwife-led care outside of our overburdened hospital system."

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

>> ^notarobot:

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.>

My favorite Santorum comment prior to this was, "Santorum finally pulls out after repeatedly coming in #2."

>> ^notarobot:

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.


We really need something more than upvotes for such a great comment.

But first, a rape by sonogram. Or is that only in Texas?
>> ^notarobot:

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^notarobot:
Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.

Genius.


My sister posted that on her facebook today. I thought it was too good not to share.

>> ^notarobot:

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.


Genius.

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.

EDIT: Holy shit! I just remembered after watching that a second time how Bush took more time off in his first year in office than any other president has in their full term ever, including Obama (so far). And continued to take off a record amount of time all while people were getting ready to fly planes into buildings.

The President is never really "on vacation" in the sense you're implying. I don't mind BHO's vacation time, only his anti-Americanism and total lack of leadership when he's at "work".

The subject of who is 'at fault' for America's lack of security resulting in 9-11 could fill a library. Anyone who promoted political correctness and opposed racial/religious profiling is guilty. And former President Hee-Haw and Friends putting up walls between federal law enforcement agencies to hide his own trysts and dirty dealings deserves plenty of credit.