Why Carly Failrina will be our next President

[RjThoughts]

But if someone really didn't want to vaccinate their kids they could still home school and then send to Liberty Univ.

Liberty is in VA, not NY

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Liberty is in VA, not NY

I know, but it's the super religious university. I honestly don't know if they require shots or not, it would be hilarious if they did.

 

[Sean Renaud]

But if someone really didn't want to vaccinate their kids they could still home school and then send to Liberty Univ.

True. I would simply state that my standards for "forced" are a little lower since I'm more interested in what's true for the general public (and thus what I feel should be discussed) and what is technically true. It's like when people argue that you don't need a license to drive, you just need to be rich enough to have enough land to drive on without using public roads. IT's not false but it applies to a fairly narrow group.

 

[RjThoughts]

I know, but it's the super religious university. I honestly don't know if they require shots or not, it would be hilarious if they did.

From my son's friends: The Jesuit schools where his friends attend/attended Notre Dame and Boston College, yeah you needed the shots

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

True. I would simply state that my standards for "forced" are a little lower since I'm more interested in what's true for the general public (and thus what I feel should be discussed) and what is technically true. It's like when people argue that you don't need a license to drive, you just need to be rich enough to have enough land to drive on without using public roads. IT's not false but it applies to a fairly narrow group.

As long as the loony folks who will home school have their way to opt out.....

 

[Sean Renaud]

Some places also allow opting out based on religious reasons. Though it seems like those are slowly being closed especially after we had that break out of measles I think it was a few years back. Whatever it was traced Disneyland as Ground Zero for the outbreak.

Makes you take the Walking Dead a little more seriously doesn't it? Realizing how utterly fucked you'd be at Disneyland. I mean that's not even fight for your survival there. That's leap from the monorail so at least you can't fuck anybody else over.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Some places also allow opting out based on religious reasons. Though it seems like those are slowly being closed especially after we had that break out of measles I think it was a few years back. Whatever it was traced Disneyland as Ground Zero for the outbreak.

Makes you take the Walking Dead a little more seriously doesn't it? Realizing how utterly fucked you'd be at Disneyland. I mean that's not even fight for your survival there. That's leap from the monorail so at least you can't fuck anybody else over.

Still doesn't stop people from going.

http://www.signs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IMG_1608-1-560x420.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

What can I say? I'm a sucker for parades.

 

[Publius1990]

Yes. First you're not ending a life, you're preventing one which is a rather large distinction. And if we'd get religious idiots to back off we could have a lot fewer abortions but that's another issue. As for vaccinations you're a danger to the community at large if you don't get vaccinated.

You're not ending a life? So that little thing growing in the womb isn't living?

"you're preventing one". Oh so preventing a life is ok. Is that how it's justified?

I've stated in other posts while I am anti abortion I am pro choice. Yes, it is possible to be both because I don't believe outlawing it is the answer or would have good results for women's health.

However it cracks me up how people justify abortion. The careful parsing of words. Take the use of fetus. When they talk about abortion it's aborting a fetus. Yeah I know technically and medically it's a fetus. But how many people do you hear in the office say to the pregnant women "how's your pregnancy coming along? Is the fetus doing well?" No we say baby.

So let's just say what it really is, it's ending human life.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're not ending a life? So that little thing growing in the womb isn't living?

"you're preventing one". Oh so preventing a life is ok. Is that how it's justified?

I've stated in other posts while I am anti abortion I am pro choice. Yes, it is possible to be both because I don't believe outlawing it is the answer or would have good results for women's health.

However it cracks me up how people justify abortion. The careful parsing of words. Take the use of fetus. When they talk about abortion it's aborting a fetus. Yeah I know technically and medically it's a fetus. But how many people do you hear in the office say to the pregnant women "how's your pregnancy coming along? Is the fetus doing well?" No we say baby.

So let's just say what it really is, it's ending human life.

No, it's not alive in the sense that you are killing it. And yes preventing a life is okay. It doesn't need any justification at all really.

Women's Health is not a realistic issue when talking about abortion. If you're only reason is that you're worried about women's health then you should just be pro-life.

It's not carefully parsed words, the words mean something. It'snot JUST that it's medically a fetus. It's that the only time it's considered something else is by pro-lifers. When pro-lifers start going after invitro fertilzation clinics then I'll believe them. If you truly believe that a fetus or embryo or fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a child then invitro is the worst thing man has ever devised. See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent. Invitro is creating a dozen lives killing off ten of them because you're selfish. It's not like you can't adopt or for that matter go without. Can you imagine going into a nursery and shooting ten kids and taking the last one home? Of course fucking not because that would be evil as fuck.

Likewise I don't see any major pushes (yes I've seen a few whackadoos) to push for mandatory autopsies and investigations of miscarriages. If the mother was drinking, doing drugs, hell at certain stages in the pregnancy if she was still doing strenous activity it could easily be her "fault". What about women who've had multiple miscarriages simply because they can't handle it for medical reasons? If a mother got drunk or high and left her kid the tub we wouldn' tbe saying "oops that's okay." If a woman neglected her child because of any activity we wouldn't say "oops". If a woman had some form of mental disease that just meant she was unfit to care for her children at the very least we'd take them away from her. But none of these things happen. The only thing we say with a miscarriage is "I'm sorry for your loss."

So lets call it what it is, it's preventing a life. It's not killing a human life. Except when it's convienent. So when people are consistent I'll buy that BS.

 

[RjThoughts]

No, it's not alive in the sense that you are killing it. And yes preventing a life is okay. It doesn't need any justification at all really.

Women's Health is not a realistic issue when talking about abortion. If you're only reason is that you're worried about women's health then you should just be pro-life.

It's not carefully parsed words, the words mean something. It'snot JUST that it's medically a fetus. It's that the only time it's considered something else is by pro-lifers. When pro-lifers start going after invitro fertilzation clinics then I'll believe them. If you truly believe that a fetus or embryo or fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a child then invitro is the worst thing man has ever devised. See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent. Invitro is creating a dozen lives killing off ten of them because you're selfish. It's not like you can't adopt or for that matter go without. Can you imagine going into a nursery and shooting ten kids and taking the last one home? Of course fucking not because that would be evil as fuck.

Likewise I don't see any major pushes (yes I've seen a few whackadoos) to push for mandatory autopsies and investigations of miscarriages. If the mother was drinking, doing drugs, hell at certain stages in the pregnancy if she was still doing strenous activity it could easily be her "fault". What about women who've had multiple miscarriages simply because they can't handle it for medical reasons? If a mother got drunk or high and left her kid the tub we wouldn' tbe saying "oops that's okay." If a woman neglected her child because of any activity we wouldn't say "oops". If a woman had some form of mental disease that just meant she was unfit to care for her children at the very least we'd take them away from her. But none of these things happen. The only thing we say with a miscarriage is "I'm sorry for your loss."

So lets call it what it is, it's preventing a life. It's not killing a human life. Except when it's convienent. So when people are consistent I'll buy that BS.

If a woman has the misfortune of a miscarriage or suffers through a still-birth, the Evangelicals want that woman prosecuted! "She killed that baby!" is what's said!

And for those that call me names for being Pro-Choice, I was raised Catholic, and was taught that a fetus does NOT have a soul until that first breath. Yes, that nun who taught us that is no longer a sister, left it to marry and have four children...

 

[Sean Renaud]

If a woman has the misfortune of a miscarriage or suffers through a still-birth, the Evangelicals want that woman prosecuted! "She killed that baby!" is what's said!

And for those that call me names for being Pro-Choice, I was raised Catholic, and was taught that a fetus does NOT have a soul until that first breath. Yes, that nun who taught us that is no longer a sister, left it to marry and have four children...

True, but what percentage do the hardcore Evangelicals actually make up? I guess Huckabee would count so they did get to show up but they're gonna get stomped the fuck out.

And I've never heard any of them come out and condemn invitro but maybe they exist and I've just missed them time and time again.

 

[RjThoughts]

True, but what percentage do the hardcore Evangelicals actually make up? I guess Huckabee would count so they did get to show up but they're gonna get stomped the fuck out.

And I've never heard any of them come out and condemn invitro but maybe they exist and I've just missed them time and time again.

When my son was in Catholic school, some of the hardcore, born again Catholic parents were against invitro, calling it an affront to God.

It's political suicide to come out and to condemn women who've suffered miscarriages, but there are some out there that will. Huckabee isn't the only one.

 

[JackLuis]

Carly Fiorina Endorses Hillary Clinton For President


Ha Ha, Made you look!

Another Hillary fan girl

We were under the impression that Queen of Fail Carly Fiorina does not think Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president. You know, because of how Fiorina is always saying that:

“Like Hillary Clinton, I too have travelled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina told the crowd. “But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something. Mrs. Clinton, flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”

 

[Publius1990]

No, it's not alive in the sense that you are killing it. And yes preventing a life is okay. It doesn't need any justification at all really.

Women's Health is not a realistic issue when talking about abortion. If you're only reason is that you're worried about women's health then you should just be pro-life.

It's not carefully parsed words, the words mean something. It'snot JUST that it's medically a fetus. It's that the only time it's considered something else is by pro-lifers. When pro-lifers start going after invitro fertilzation clinics then I'll believe them. If you truly believe that a fetus or embryo or fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a child then invitro is the worst thing man has ever devised. See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent. Invitro is creating a dozen lives killing off ten of them because you're selfish. It's not like you can't adopt or for that matter go without. Can you imagine going into a nursery and shooting ten kids and taking the last one home? Of course fucking not because that would be evil as fuck.

Likewise I don't see any major pushes (yes I've seen a few whackadoos) to push for mandatory autopsies and investigations of miscarriages. If the mother was drinking, doing drugs, hell at certain stages in the pregnancy if she was still doing strenous activity it could easily be her "fault". What about women who've had multiple miscarriages simply because they can't handle it for medical reasons? If a mother got drunk or high and left her kid the tub we wouldn' tbe saying "oops that's okay." If a woman neglected her child because of any activity we wouldn't say "oops". If a woman had some form of mental disease that just meant she was unfit to care for her children at the very least we'd take them away from her. But none of these things happen. The only thing we say with a miscarriage is "I'm sorry for your loss."

So lets call it what it is, it's preventing a life. It's not killing a human life. Except when it's convienent. So when people are consistent I'll buy that BS.

Well, you’re right. You weren’t parsing words. I thought about it. You’re just flat out using the wrong ones.

You have abortion and contraceptives confused, buddy. Contraception is preventing life. That is, preventing life from forming – the fertilization of the egg by a sperm. That’s prevention.

Once that happens, and it’s a viable fetus, the bus has left the station. Now we are talking about ending life. Medical dictionaries generally define abortion as the deliberate “termination of a pregnancy.” The term prevention isn’t used anywhere. So the plain meaning of terminate: Webster’ Dictionary – “to bring to an end; put an end to.”

Look you’re entitled to your opinion. If you want to believe abortion is “prevention” have at it all day with that logic. You also contradict yourself in your own post. You say abortion is preventing a life but a quote from your own post: "See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent." (emphasis supplied) So you said it yourself.

One last point I have to comment on because it's absurd. Women's health isn't a realist issue when talking about abortion. What? By your logic, that your preventing life not ending it there is no other "person" we are talking about other than the women. So who's health is at stake? The doctor, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic, the receptionist at the PP clinic. Come on, the issue of women's health is an important issue with respect to abortion.

 

[phrodeau]

Well, you’re right. You weren’t parsing words. I thought about it. You’re just flat out using the wrong ones.

You have abortion and contraceptives confused, buddy. Contraception is preventing life. That is, preventing life from forming – the fertilization of the egg by a sperm. That’s prevention.

Once that happens, and it’s a viable fetus, the bus has left the station. Now we are talking about ending life. Medical dictionaries generally define abortion as the deliberate “termination of a pregnancy.” The term prevention isn’t used anywhere. So the plain meaning of terminate: Webster’ Dictionary – “to bring to an end; put an end to.”

Look you’re entitled to your opinion. If you want to believe abortion is “prevention” have at it all day with that logic. You also contradict yourself in your own post. You say abortion is preventing a life but a quote from your own post: "See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent." (emphasis supplied) So you said it yourself.

One last point I have to comment on because it's absurd. Women's health isn't a realist issue when talking about abortion. What? By your logic, that your preventing life not ending it there is no other "person" we are talking about other than the women. So who's health is at stake? The doctor, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic, the receptionist at the PP clinic. Come on, the issue of women's health is an important issue with respect to abortion.

Bingo. Now you need to define "viable fetus". Medically, that's not until the 22nd week.

 

[Publius1990]

Bingo. Now you need to define "viable fetus". Medically, that's not until the 22nd week.

I get that. No qualms with that statement. Point is, whether it's a viable fetus or not, it's ending life. I mean the fetus doesn't suddenly come alive at 22 weeks does it? My point was with the OPs use of abortion preventing life versus what I believe it is - ending life. You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, you’re right. You weren’t parsing words. I thought about it. You’re just flat out using the wrong ones.

You have abortion and contraceptives confused, buddy. Contraception is preventing life. That is, preventing life from forming – the fertilization of the egg by a sperm. That’s prevention.

Once that happens, and it’s a viable fetus, the bus has left the station. Now we are talking about ending life. Medical dictionaries generally define abortion as the deliberate “termination of a pregnancy.” The term prevention isn’t used anywhere. So the plain meaning of terminate: Webster’ Dictionary – “to bring to an end; put an end to.”

Look you’re entitled to your opinion. If you want to believe abortion is “prevention” have at it all day with that logic. You also contradict yourself in your own post. You say abortion is preventing a life but a quote from your own post: "See an abortion is ending one life because it's inconvienent." (emphasis supplied) So you said it yourself.

One last point I have to comment on because it's absurd. Women's health isn't a realist issue when talking about abortion. What? By your logic, that your preventing life not ending it there is no other "person" we are talking about other than the women. So who's health is at stake? The doctor, the taxi driver that got her to the clinic, the receptionist at the PP clinic. Come on, the issue of women's health is an important issue with respect to abortion.

Oxford says you're wrong. Not only are contraceptives often used after the fact which by your definition would be an abortion and the ending of a life not the preventing of one. Not only that but it's also quite possible that they prevent implantation as well. Which again would fall under your definition of ending a life not preventing. Admittedly the science is out on how much that effects things. Plan B does the same thing. Though how one defines Plan B does vary from person to person.

If we're going to be juvenile and break out the dictionary there are all sorts of things that don't mean what the dictionary says.

There is no contradiction in my post. I simply chose to use your language. I notice you don't address any of the other points because they shatter what point you do have.

 

[JackLuis]

Michele Bachmann Says Carly Fiorina Loves Muslims Too Much To Be President

We don’t quite understand why Bachmann is trolling Fiorina. Maybe she’s jealous because she wanted to be the first Republican princess of America. Or maybe she is a cuckservative and once she heard Donald Trump wants to put a lady on his presidential ticket — he cherishes women, you know, and thinks they’re TERRIFIC! — she figured she might as well give him a Twitter handjob to put herself in the running.

Or, who knows? Maybe Michele Bachmann is just batshit crazy as always.

 

[Publius1990]

Oxford says you're wrong. Not only are contraceptives often used after the fact which by your definition would be an abortion and the ending of a life not the preventing of one. Not only that but it's also quite possible that they prevent implantation as well. Which again would fall under your definition of ending a life not preventing. Admittedly the science is out on how much that effects things. Plan B does the same thing. Though how one defines Plan B does vary from person to person.

If we're going to be juvenile and break out the dictionary there are all sorts of things that don't mean what the dictionary says.

There is no contradiction in my post. I simply chose to use your language. I notice you don't address any of the other points because they shatter what point you do have.

I looked at your link and I don't see anything in it makes my points wrong. Actually it upholds my points. You need to read your own link more carefully. The "after the fact" the link speaks to is after sex, not after life has formed. Reread it. In other words contraception is just as I said it was - preventing pregnancy. I think you got it wrong and misread it. Similarly from the PP site regarding the morning after pill (my emphasis)

"Pregnancy doesn't happen right after sex. That's why it's possible to prevent pregnancy even after the fact. It can take up to six days for the sperm and egg to meet after having sex. Emergency contraception pills work by keeping a woman's ovary from releasing an egg for longer than usual. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm."

In other words life hasn't formed yet. Contraception is prevention. The after the fact your link and my PP quote refer to is after sex not after the fact when life starts, which is the way apparently you misread it.

 

[phrodeau]

I looked at your link and I don't see anything in it makes my points wrong. Actually it upholds my points. You need to read your own link more carefully. The "after the fact" the link speaks to is after sex, not after life has formed. Reread it. In other words contraception is just as I said it was - preventing pregnancy. I think you got it wrong and misread it. Similarly from the PP site regarding the morning after pill (my emphasis)

"Pregnancy doesn't happen right after sex. That's why it's possible to prevent pregnancy even after the fact. It can take up to six days for the sperm and egg to meet after having sex. Emergency contraception pills work by keeping a woman's ovary from releasing an egg for longer than usual. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm."

In other words life hasn't formed yet. Contraception is prevention. The after the fact your link and my PP quote refer to is after sex not after the fact when life starts, which is the way apparently you misread it.

But if the sperm meets the egg, then it's a new life. Preventing that new life from implantation would be murder, right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

But it doesn't just prevent sperm from meeeting egg, it can in many cases prevent implantation. Which by your definition would be ending a life. Really given the science the only way you can be sure you've 'prevented' rather than 'ending' is if you use a condom. Anything else and you're really more hopeful than you are certain.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Mrs. Fiorina, the only former female chief executive among the candidates, continues to promote her business experience on the trail, yet she was fired by Hewlett-Packard after the company’s stock dropped by half in 2005.

1999
Hiccup, followed by rise
January 3, 2000
Stock started dropping steeply
Hit a slower dive before 2001
Stayed low, with three awful drops to near rock bottom 2002-2003
Stayed low 2004- 2005

1999, a dysfunctional HP board committee, filled with its own poisoned politics, hired her with no CEO experience, nor interviews with the full board. Fired in 2005, after six years in office, several leading publications titled her one of the worst technology CEOs of all time

Fiorina did nothing to increase profits over her five-year term, with the S&P 500 showing net income across enterprises concomitantly up 70%. Furthermore, shareholder wealth at HP was sliced 52% under her reign against the S&P, which was down only 15% in that bearish period.

The lost shareholder wealth and lost strategic direction at HP are only part of Fiorina’s legacy. Also lost during her reign were 30,000 U.S. tech jobs, the company’s revered employee morale, and the egalitarian, humble HP way culture. A new defensive, finger-pointing style of leadership led to waves of firing. Dissent was equated with disloyalty as discovered by Walter Hewlett, a board member and son of HP’s co-founder, when he questioned Fiorina’s misguided Compaq acquisition strategy and refused to be bullied into a board statement of unanimous consent, suffering legal and personal threats.


http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/carly-fiorina-president-2/

Like any other GOP nutcase, she is in it for herself, first.
I could count on her to make bad decisions, disregard
advisors, abuse people, and then give lame excuses
for her fail. I would not want her to bring disorder,
rotten moral, and, limited vision to the helm
of our government.

Bonus! She does not care about people who are not millionaires.

Carly Fiorina opposes mandatory paid maternity leave, wants to defund Planned Parenthood, and doesn’t support equal pay.


gsgs- Not presidential material, in my book./end gsgs comment

 

[Publius1990]

But if the sperm meets the egg, then it's a new life. Preventing that new life from implantation would be murder, right?

With respect to your first sentence, yes. My belief is that once we have conception we have life. I certainly agree there are different stages of life. Not every fetus will become viable and I recognize that a fetus (and ending that fetus' existence through abortion) is different that ending the life of a little baby you bounce on your knee. But I think we can agree that they are both living things.

With respect to your second sentence, I don't think I would call it murder. I'm not nor did I suggest that abortion is murder and I don't think I would call the prevention of implantation murder.

But remember in my original post the point I made was that abortion was not preventing life but ending life. If we prevent life through contraception (the prevention of egg and sperm meeting) or through implantation (the bonding to the uterine wall) we are not talking about abortion are we.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you agree with his first sentence, you explain yourself well that you do an understand its implications, then you cannot disagree with the second half. Preventing a fetus from becoming viable intentionally is still ending a life by your definition.