YDB95
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 12,291
"Have you ever watched it? If so, you know he doesn't say New York would be underwater by 2015."
Al Gore has made all kinds of predictions that never came true.
If that were true, you wouldn't have needed to pull something out of your ear the way you did.
"Exactly. A clump of tissue is not a living baby."
Your entire body is one large clump of living tissues, YDB95 - no, you're no longer a baby, but you remain a human being!
If you want to argue about viability outside the womb, that's one thing. But you're already on the record as opposing any and all abortions, end of story. So you don't really care about that distinction.
"Cute, but no, I don't think murderers are being treated unfairly if they're charged with murder. I DO question the motives behind the law that they can be charged with the murder of two, which is essentially to kiss up to people like you. But that's a different question."
SERIOUS QUESTION: A dangerous killer ignores Joe Biden's "Gun-Free Zone" warning signs, enters a school building, and shoots at a pregnant teacher, killing her unborn baby. The teacher survives. The prosecution wants to charge the guy with murder, but his pro-choice lawyer argues: "My client didn't kill anybody... his bullet was stopped by that clump of tissues in the woman's abdomen!" As a juror, do you agree with the defense attorney?
Not if I know anything about the law. And by the way, that's the first (and will probably be the last) time I've ever heard you express any concern whatsoever for a pregnant woman's well-being.
"I support abortion rights, and I oppose legalized prostitution."
So... you're saying that, in some instances, guys CAN create laws telling a woman what she can & can't do with her own body? I just want to make that clear!
If you've got any evidence that any substantial number of women ever choose to be prostitutes when they have any other options whatsoever, I'm all ears.
"By the way, have you ever heard of a woman becoming a prostitute by choice? I haven't"
NOW who's being naive?
In other words, you haven't. Just as I suspected.
"And you're still ignoring the fact that Lipinski was literally installed by a party machine based on the fact that his father used to hold that seat. Normally that's just the sort of thing you love to rail against - corrupt Democratic machines!"
I love at how QUICK you are to admit that Chicago politics is horrendously corrupt when it's a pro-life Democrat you're hoping to see defeated!
I've never denied that corruption exists.
"The Democrats invited Fluke because - and this is true regardless of your opinion on the conscience clause, Dumpington - she was affected by it, and the Republicans hadn't invited anyone who was."
Sandra Fluke "was affected by it" because she was having sex all of the time and couldn't afford the contraceptives that she liked - and she wanted the government to pay for them. And, of course, the congressional Democrats agreed, and they then invited her to address their 2012 national convention!
At this point I feel safe in assuming you don't know how the Pill works. You've had several opportunities to prove me wrong about that, but you've proven me right again and again. Here's what you're missing, Dump: when a woman goes on the Pill, she has to take it every day, whether she has sex on that day or not. Otherwise it won't work. And that's not even touching on the fact that a lot of women take the Pill for medicinal purposes (to alleviate debilitating cramps, etc.), including the friend on whose behalf Sandra Fluke testified.
So it had absolutely nothing to do with how much sex she was having.
First of all, Reid was the minority leader in 2005. Secondly, at no time in the twentieth century (and maybe not before then, I'm not sure) did EITHER party block a Supreme Court nominee from even getting a hearing the way the Republicans did with Garland. It never happened, period. But like you say, what goes around comes around."Obama was the president in 2016; he had a right to have his Supreme Court nominee get a fair hearing and a vote, even if the vote was unsuccessful."
Unfortunately for President Obama, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader is the one who schedules votes for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, as per the U.S. Constitution. In a 2005 speech (back when Republican George W. Bush was president) then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Nowhere in [the Constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote."
I repeat: WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND!
"Tarkanian is a famous gadfly, who has run for office eight times and never won."
So you're saying that no Nevada U.S. Senate election would have been necessary because Tarkanian couldn't possibly win? Isn't that exactly what they were saying about Donald Trump on the eve of the 2016 presidential election?
No to both of your questions. That's not what I said, and that's not what everyone was saying just before the 2016 election.
"No. YOU pretend it's commonplace when even you can only point to that one example..."
Again, have you NO PRINCIPLES? - just ONE instance of injustice should be one-too-many! Instead, you pretend that this was only a one-time deal that will NEVER be repeated! But when it IS repeated over and over again, will you accept it as normal? OF COURSE YOU WILL!
Seriously, YDB95 - HOW MANY TIMES will this have to happen before you acknowledge that it's complete bullsh*t? Or will the fear of some far-left wacko labelling you a "trans-phobe" keep you forever silent?
There is no evidence at all that men everywhere are going to pretend to be transwomen in order to get on a winning team. None. And it's incredibly offensive that you seriously think any such thing is likely to happen.