Rand Paul you're on my shit list.

And that'll always be the problem, hence your ban on embryonic stem cell research.

I think it is a good argument, it gives women choice and it outlaws partial birth procedure, which is gruesome imo.

abandonconflict said:

I think it is a good argument, it gives women choice and it outlaws partial birth procedure, which is gruesome imo.

Click to expand...

IMHO it should really be done prior to 4 weeks, it's just a simple tablet and a really heavy period afterwards, but unfortunately not all women know straight away nor can be expected to decide on tthe tip of a hat, so 12 weeks based scientifically is the maximum in the future glorious Harrekin Nation

Harrekin said:

IMHO it should really be done prior to 4 weeks, it's just a simple tablet and a really heavy period afterwards, but unfortunately not all women know straight away nor can be expected to decide on tthe tip of a hat, so 12 weeks based scientifically is the maximum in the future glorious Harrekin Nation

Click to expand...

I say about 8 weeks. Prior to that, it isn't human. That may sound insensitive until you look at the definition of human again. At the earliest stages, an embryo will resemble each step in evolution from protozoa to human.

As far as I'm concerned if it can't survive outside of my body it is a parasite, 12 weeks??? Sure, get it out and if it survives at whatever week good for it! <Maybe I need to scroll down a bit but my Hair is Up!

UncleBuck said:

i'm giving you one chance to utter the phrase "i'm a worthless shitbag" before i post the video of the woman, who is already tackled and pinned by several men twice her size, receive a needless head stomp from some guy that just wanders up.

so just admit it and say "i'm a worthless shit bag" or i'll post the video that vindicates me and proves you to be a worthless shit bag.

ball's in your court.

Click to expand...

ohhh nooo Im afraid please dont post the video. I've seen the video. He didn't stomp on her head. If I hadn't seen the video I'd still probably disagree with you since you are wrong so often and see things in a sick twisted way.

You don't need to admit anything. Posters can see you for what you are.
Of course she was pinned you fool. She made an aggressive move toward Paul. Who cares about their size drama queen?

And to be clear, the person who put their foot on the woman to hold her down is a coward. Different than a bullsh*t artist like you, but still bad.

abandonconflict said:

I say about 8 weeks. Prior to that, it isn't human. That may sound insensitive until you look at the definition of human again. At the earliest stages, an embryo will resemble each step in evolution from protozoa to human.

Click to expand...

It's human. But what it is not yet is a human. My opinion. cn

lifegoesonbrah said:

ppps you are an idiot.

Click to expand...

He didn't say he never put someone on ignore for being a douchebag.

Parker said:

He didn't stomp on her head.

Click to expand...

i'll say it for you. you're a worthless shit bag.

behold a pinned woman get her head stomped on, at which point someone else tells him "no no no no no".

[video=youtube;SbnEy_U9pYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnEy_U9pYk[/video]

UncleBuck said:

i'll say it for you. you're a worthless shit bag.

behold a pinned woman get her head stomped on, at which point someone else tells him "no no no no no".

[video=youtube;SbnEy_U9pYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnEy_U9pYk[/video]

Click to expand...

She looks dangerous he was just protecting himself

In fairness now, it was just some dickhead that put his foot on her head, the others in the crowd were like "ah now come on" telling him to stop.

Mountain =/= Molehill

lifegoesonbrah said:

She looks dangerous he was just protecting himself

Click to expand...

luckily there were nearly a dozen people between herself and opossum head to prevent her and her sign from giving opossum head a paper cut.

that man who got in there needlessly and decided to stomp on her is a hero.

Harrekin said:

In fairness now, it was just some dickhead that put his foot on her head, the others in the crowd were like "ah now come on" telling him to stop.

Mountain =/= Molehill

Click to expand...

put his foot on her head?

LOL!

review the video, good sir.

after someone slams this woman's head to the concrete (keep in mind she has both hands showing, holding a sign with one), another dude who is just standing there puts his foot on her shoulder/neck area, but then makes a sharp downward motion onto her skull/neck, which is pressed against concrete already.

the resulting effect is a horrific sound of her neck bending, followed by her reaching for her head in pain.

this is a direct reflection on the types of people the paul family and their rabid, douchey supporters fancy, and how they comport themselves.

but the best part of all of this is hearing a bunch of (fake) libertarians demanding a government service to assist them.

with behavior out of people like we witnessed, why not trust unaccountable private "police" to enforce justice upon this poor woman?

lol, libertarians.

UncleBuck said:

put his foot on her head?

LOL!

review the video, good sir.

after someone slams this woman's head to the concrete (keep in mind she has both hands showing, holding a sign with one), another dude who is just standing there puts his foot on her shoulder/neck area, but then makes a sharp downward motion onto her skull/neck, which is pressed against concrete already.

the resulting effect is a horrific sound of her neck bending, followed by her reaching for her head in pain.

this is a direct reflection on the types of people the paul family and their rabid, douchey supporters fancy, and how they comport themselves.

but the best part of all of this is hearing a bunch of (fake) libertarians demanding a government service to assist them.

with behavior out of people like we witnessed, why not trust unaccountable private "police" to enforce justice upon this poor woman?

lol, libertarians.

Click to expand...

It was just one dickhead in a crowd, I bet the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd doing beatings on white people are Obama supporters...does that mean all Obama supporters do punishment beatings?

I know you dont like the Pauls, but this is such a non-issue its *yawn*

Illegal Smile said:

So, how do libertarians feel about abortion? It would be an odd political philosophy that wasn't clear on a life and death issue.

You can cut and paste all you want, but the fact remains that I have never met a professed libertarian who didn't get tongue-tied and pissed off after five minutes of questioning on what that means.

ps I don't think you defined statism

pps I never put anyone on ignore for disagreeing with me

Click to expand...

UN-Believable...I like how you accuse me of copy/paste when I take the time to write out an actuall post to your drivel and then respond with how I am tongue-tied......I wrote out a well thought out post and spent about 15 minutes and your response is 5 sentences on REPLAY of your previous posts with 1 original statements (bashing me for not defining statism?). I would expect you would give me this respect I gave you in spending 15 minutes writing up a post but you have absolutely no response whatsoever except to repeat yourself and criticize me for not defining statism to your peabird brain.

You can start by looking up the word in the dictionary, it is a very broad term but in short It is all encompossing as far as defining Anarchy and Libertarianism , it is a good word to use to help you understand the view and mindset as an outsider who is foriegn to this realm of knowledge so this is why I am using this, from here I will go on about what statism is philosophically.

Philosophically Statism is the essence of your response here, to ridicule and criticize people, to see them as below you, to judge. Statism is thinking that its perfectly justified for armed thugs to invade my home and murder my family or jail me because I posses a plant or a substance. Statism is treating human beings as cattle which we all know is immoral. Statism is fictional without our acknowledgement, without our propping it up there is no such thing, without people in your mindset it would not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism[/URL said:

]
Statism (French; étatisme) is a term used by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science"]political scientists

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism[/URL said:

to describe the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all encompassing state.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] Limited government, welfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism.[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.[SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP][SUP][18][/SUP]

Click to expand...

also see statism's brother the other opposite of Anarchy and Libertarianism:

Authoritarian - This is what the Democrats and Republicans are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian[/URL said:

]
Authoritarianism is a form of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organization"]social organization

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian[/URL said:

characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and libertarianism. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians

Click to expand...

Moving on..Another key thing to understand to move this discussion a bit forward since you have me repeating myself due to your lack of coherent responses, The non-aggression principle is something most libertarians agree on, its very simple, we don't believe that aggression is ever morally justified....Roughly defined:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force, or NAP) is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual&#8217;s property, including that person&#8217;s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner&#8217;s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation, and military drafts. NAP is the foundation of most present day libertarian philosophies.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]

Click to expand...

So are you begging to understand a bit? have you done some reading? Do you still fail to see why Rand is a sellout to endorse Mitt Romney.

The fact is, its impossible for ANYONE to be a true libertarian and support either Obama or Mitt Romney without being considered some kind of fraud, fake, whatever...Mitt Romney and Obama both stand AGAINST everything...Literally fucking everything that libertarians stand for. Your just not a libertarian if you support these people even in the slightest..

deprave said:

Moving on..Another key thing to understand to move this discussion a bit forward since you have me repeating myself due to your lack of coherent responses, The non-aggression principle is something most libertarians agree on, its very simple, we don't believe that aggression is ever morally justified....Roughly defined:

Click to expand...

The problem is: if I come to you on the street, some crazy little shit, and I grab your wife and try to push her into a dark alley.

Immediate aggression is required, though your wife is not in trouble this second, the next second, she will be. The problem with Paulittes and Obamaites, they don't understand real. To say that aggression is never moral is proposing a bizarre understanding of humans.

Now if a bunch of little shits are trying to get into your house and you are huddled there in your non-aggression stance. "they haven't gotten in yet." So I and a neighbor take the offensive and roll up their flanks and run them off with ultra violence.

Will you thank me? This is the situation in the world. Preemption is required. The goofy Obama heads thought that could stop and so do the Paulistas.

UncleBuck said:

i'll say it for you. you're a worthless shit bag.

behold a pinned woman get her head stomped on, at which point someone else tells him "no no no no no".

[video=youtube;SbnEy_U9pYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnEy_U9pYk[/video]

Click to expand...

I saw a curb stomp.

Not a big curb stomp, but a little curb stomp on an old lady is still fucked up.