The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Maybe cause a woman will never willfully/consentually sleep with a republican........[/QUOTE]
Personally deny that. Liberal chicks tend to get wet after I've decisively destroyed them in an over dinner debate. So easy.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']Personally deny that. Liberal chicks tend to get wet after I've decisively destroyed them in an over dinner debate. So easy.[/QUOTE]

Is that before or after you tell them you're from Pannslyvania?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Good. It's a weird restriction, and one I've expected to see removed for some time.
Hey, I put trees back in the ground, not take them out.[/QUOTE]
Meh, reverse lumberjack, whatev.;)
 
[quote name='Cantatus']I've always loved how FOX News will complain about the "mainstream media" out one side of their mouth, but then talk about how they are the "most watched news network." I'm sorry, but if you're the most watched news network, that pretty much relegates you to being "mainstream" whether you like it or not.

As far as the media being "all over Obama's dick" goes, I found this data of the 2012 election coverage to be interesting.[/QUOTE]
That' one of the bigger frauds that they've engaged in, trying to convince people they're outside the mainstream. It's like an indie band getting mainstream success, but still insisting they're indie.
 
They are succeeding at limiting access to abortion across the country. It seems to me that they are winning that battle, so why would they stop? Pro-choice advocates have been asleep at the wheel to be honest.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld the second amendment as a fundamental right to personally bear arms, just as they have upheld abortion, but state legislatures have been restricting gun ownership and abortions across the nation. As long as firearm ownership is permitted in some symbolic sense, you can essentially disarm entire cities and counties when it comes to legal gun ownership. It goes without saying that illegally obtained weapons are still prevalent in places where legal gun ownership is not widely permitted.

So yeah, abortion is permitted nationwide in some symbolic sense, but they can make it hard to get one. That's the way I see it going for the time being on both issues.
 
No matter you're pro-life or pro choice when you see the staggering statistic of 1 in 3 women will have an abortion by the time their 45 you truly must examine the denigration of society and accountability. Obama is a catalyst for irresponsibility. And it shows, everywhere. I'm anti-irresponsibility more than anything.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']No matter you're pro-life or pro choice when you see the staggering statistic of 1 in 3 women will have an abortion by the time their 45 you truly must examine the denigration of society and accountability. Obama is a catalyst for irresponsibility. And it shows, everywhere. I'm anti-irresponsibility more than anything.[/QUOTE]

48 hours earlier in this thread...

[quote name='cfootball1']Liberal chicks tend to get wet after I've decisively destroyed them in an over dinner debate. So easy.[/QUOTE]
 
The point is not about pro-choice or pro-life, the point is that just because something is affirmed by the Supreme Court, it does not mean that states and counties and cities will not try to regulate it in the way that they see fit.

Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land and I agree with it, but local governments can certainly regulate abortion clinics out of existence, and this will usually happen in Republican controlled areas. Similarly, in Democratic controlled areas, you will not get a gun permit unless you are a judge, a celebrity or Diane Feinstein no matter what the Supreme Court has had to say.

And I think that's the way it should be, generally speaking. I think Los Angeles County has every right to deny a gun permit to every single resident. I also think shall-issue states have every right to grant conceal carry permit to anyone who passes the criteria they have set. We have these laboratories of democracy that are perfect for observing the results of different policies.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']No matter you're pro-life or pro choice when you see the staggering statistic of 1 in 3 women will have an abortion by the time their 45 you truly must examine the denigration of society and accountability. Obama is a catalyst for irresponsibility. And it shows, everywhere. I'm anti-irresponsibility more than anything.[/QUOTE]

Yes and 88% of those abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. To me that is no different than using contraception.

What exactly is the irresponsibility you are talking about? 57% of all women having abortions were using protection of some type the month they got pregnant. The other 43% at least decided that since they could not raise a child they should not do it. Seems more irresponsible to have a bunch of children you cannot support that requires tax payer money to take care of. Another little fact. Married women have abortions also. Sex happens and sometimes people are not smart. To me it has nothing to do with the decay of society. In fact I think it actually is a sign of a more modern society. Instead of sending girls off to the nunnery we try to provide choices that won't permanently ruin their lives.
 
So you're comparing the traumatic sometimes life altering act of having an abortion to putting on a sleeve? The part of society that can casually interchange abortion and condom is exactly my point.


Another point that nobody brings up, even as a pro-life guy I'm not arrogant enough to tell anyone when life begins. No matter what anyone may claim, you cannot either. Which is why nobody should risk murder for anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cfootball1']So you're comparing the traumatic sometimes life altering act of having an abortion to putting on a sleeve? The part of society that can casually interchange abortion and condom is exactly my point.


Another point that nobody brings up, even as a pro-life guy I'm not arrogant enough to tell anyone when life begins. No matter what anyone may claim, you cannot either. Which is why nobody should risk murder for anything.[/QUOTE]

Really? I can guarantee you at 12 weeks a baby is not a living breathing thinking human being like you and me. It is not a matter of opinion but biological fact. You are also assuming it is traumatic for all women. I would be willing to bet it is less traumatic than giving birth to a child you do not want or going to give up for adoption.

What again IS your point? Unwanted pregnancies are just that. UNWANTED. Whether you choose to take the pill, morning after pill, chemical abortion or traditional abortion early in the pregnancy it all has the same outcome. NO LIFE. By your definition anything that prevents life is murder.
 
giving life shouldn't be traumatic whether you're raising it or giving it the opportunity to live with a happy family who wants it more than anything.

The underlying element of this issue is atheism vs Christianity. So while were technically debating this we are really just debating religion. No point in that.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Really? I can guarantee you at 12 weeks a baby is not a living breathing thinking human being like you and me. It is not a matter of opinion but biological fact. You are also assuming it is traumatic for all women. I would be willing to bet it is less traumatic than giving birth to a child you do not want or going to give up for adoption.

What again IS your point? Unwanted pregnancies are just that. UNWANTED. Whether you choose to take the pill, morning after pill, chemical abortion or traditional abortion early in the pregnancy it all has the same outcome. NO LIFE. By your definition anything that prevents life is murder.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to get into this again so I will just leave this here.

The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it. His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder.
Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and in your baby's brain, synapses are forming furiously. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be. From crown to rump, your baby-to-be is just over 2 inches long (about the size of a lime) and weighs half an ounce.
Click to expand...
index.jpg


Survivability is the only logical anwser I have heard when it comes to determining whether you can morally abort it. It still is a tough and fairly cruel way to look at another life. Other than that, you cannot say anything about "living or breathing or thinking" because half of those occur very early, and the other one doesn't occur (in the sense you mean it) until long after you are born.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, "shit happens" isn't a good explanation of how you are being so responsible for aborting it lol.

Most reasonable people will admit they don't know when a life begins, but that we should be careful when dealing with these situations. Abortion shouldn't be considered a form of contraception. A condomn shouldn't be considered murder, and banning abortions further into the developmental cycle of another life shouldn't be considered "enslavement" of women either.

It is a balance of too often, none at all, too soon, and too long. Too soon and you are crazy fascist, and too late and you are a murderer. Too often, and you are inconsiderate and irresponsible in dealing in the gift of life, and none at all, you are dictating decisions that should be left up to families in the cases of rape, complications, incest, etc.

It is all about a balance.
 
[quote name='Knoell']

Survivability is the only logical anwser I have heard when it comes to determining whether you can morally abort it. It still is a tough and fairly cruel way to look at another life. Other than that, you cannot say anything about "living or breathing or thinking" because half of those occur very early, and the other one doesn't occur (in the sense you mean it) until long after you are born.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, "shit happens" isn't a good explanation of how you are being so responsible for aborting it lol.

Most reasonable people will admit they don't know when a life begins, but that we should be careful when dealing with these situations. Abortion shouldn't be considered a form of contraception. A condomn shouldn't be considered murder, and banning abortions further into the developmental cycle of another life shouldn't be considered "enslavement" of women either.

It is a balance of too often, none at all, too soon, and too long. Too soon and you are crazy fascist, and too late and you are a murderer. Too often, and you are inconsiderate and irresponsible in dealing in the gift of life, and none at all, you are dictating decisions that should be left up to families in the cases of rape, complications, incest, etc.

It is all about a balance.[/QUOTE]

This is very well put and I agree with a lot you are saying here. Personally, I would not choose abortion unless there were circumstances where my girlfriend/wife was in danger. I will be rather blunt about my view on "life". I am an atheist so therefore I do not believe in an eternal soul. Therefore it comes down to biology for me. If the fetus is viable outside the body then I say no abortion. I am most comfortable in that first 12 week time frame and the time between 12 weeks and "viability" is a more gray area. I guess my opinion is that I would want there to be "better" reasons for those types of abortions. I agree 100% that using abortion as contraception is an irresponsible thing but I also know sometimes "shit" does happen and removing the avenue to correct a mistake should not be done. I was only trying to be blunt by pointing out that contraception is essentially "preventing life" if you consider life to begin when sperm meets egg. There are many who actually DO believe that so I guess I should not be surprised when a lot of this legislation tries to get passed. Anyway, nice post. It definitely made me pause a little to consider a deeper meaning to the whole debate.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']giving life shouldn't be traumatic whether you're raising it or giving it the opportunity to live with a happy family who wants it more than anything.

The underlying element of this issue is atheism vs Christianity. So while were technically debating this we are really just debating religion. No point in that.[/QUOTE]

For a Libertarian that loves to champion things like social freedoms, you sure would love to impose your narrow world view on other people given the chance.
 
Hey I'm all for decriminalization of drugs, gay marriage and all that good stuff but when your "social freedom" effects other people then it's not your freedom anymore.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']Hey I'm all for decriminalization of drugs, gay marriage and all that good stuff but when your "social freedom" effects other people then it's not your freedom anymore.[/QUOTE]

In reality most "social freedoms" impact other people. If you eat too much and get fat you will most likely have higher medical costs that everyone shares. Same for smoking, high risk sexual behavior, extreme sporting and drinking alcohol. We all agree those social freedoms impact those we define as "human beings" and yet we still allow those activities. Abortion on the other hand places the rights of the women over that of the fetus, which we do not define as a human being. We can debate the time frame when one becomes "human" but under the current law it is not until birth.

I would assume your cut off is that abortion ends "life" and therefore not a freedom. But what of smoking? It is pretty obvious second hand smoke is a risk factor yet we still allow people to smoke. Now thankfully we have tried hard to mitigate second hand exposure but would you be against any type of smoking since it could possibly hurt others? You could extend that to driving cars that pollute the air or coal plants that spew toxins. I am a little off topic here but my point is that we have many freedoms that have consequences for others, even fatal ones, and yet we allow them to be exercised.
 
[quote name='cfootball1']Hey I'm all for decriminalization of drugs, gay marriage and all that good stuff but when your "social freedom" effects other people then it's not your freedom anymore.[/QUOTE]

So you consider that you have to right to impose your ideals and force of will on someone else?

Does that sound like social freedom to you?

Children are under the authority of the parents and gov't until they are 18, you ok if we emancipate all the children from that, they get to vote, they get to do everything adults do the moment they are born. If you are ok with that then I will support your right to defend this bundle/mass of cells. Otherwise if children are under the law of the guardian, the guardian should maintain HER RIGHT not to give birth to such

And that was a snarky sarcastic remark you made... I don't believe for one sec you are "for that" good stuff
 
Second hand smoke is one of the biggest myths around. We allow heavy leeway for the sake of freedom and not to impose on others. And rightfully so. You have to be reasonable.

"Otherwise if children are under the law of the guardian"
So your calling it a child and you're already establishing a relationship of rights. By your rationale there should be no child guardian rights.

Do we have the right to lock up a criminal for committing a crime? Or does that violate his rights? No, It directly violates a decent society and decent behavior.
 
The fact you say second hand smoke is a myth now means your opinion is invalid to me. If you may have noticed my avatar name is cancerman1120. I have a Ph. D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a focus on experimental cancer therapeutics. You must be reading a ton of junk science articles if you believe second hand smoke does not cause harm to non-smokers. It is going to be hard to take you very serious from now on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cfootball1']Second hand smoke is one of the biggest myths around. We allow heavy leeway for the sake of freedom and not to impose on others. And rightfully so. You have to be reasonable.[/quote]

Keep smoking with others around you, and lets see how "mythical" that assumption is. In fact continually blow your smoke in their face.

I suggest farting continuously in the presence of people too

And see how you fair

"Otherwise if children are under the law of the guardian"
So your calling it a child and you're already establishing a relationship of rights. By your rationale there should be no child guardian rights.
Click to expand...

CHILDREN have no rights, from the moment you are born till 18, you life is controlled and manipulated by adults

Do we have the right to lock up a criminal for committing a crime? Or does that violate his rights? No, It directly violates a decent society and decent behavior.
Click to expand...

you mean like the guys who are having private sex but the police saw them through the window and busted in arresting them for sodomy?

or the guy smoking weed in his parked car and gets dragged out by police

What is REALLY A crime and what is prejudice by righteous individuals who want to exact their moral authority on the rest
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']The fact you say second hand smoke is a myth now means your opinion is invalid to me. If you may have noticed my avatar name is cancerman1120. I have a Ph. D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a focus on experimental cancer therapeutics. You must be reading a ton of junk science articles if you believe second hand smoke does not cause harm to non-smokers. It is going to be hard to take you very serious from now on.[/QUOTE]
Well inform me, I was assuming you were suggesting about the no smoking in bars and restaurants ban. Obviously if you blow smoke in someones face constantly you will have problems. Not denying that, terrible wording. However, does it still apply in a divided off restaurant? With space in between. That was my point. Excuse me if I have become weary of scientific consensus after the complete fallacy and lie that is global warming.


Only one Toronto study confirmed positive effects of smoke free restaurants and bars. "However, not all researchers agree that this was a causal relationship, and a 2009 study of many smoke-free ordinances in the United States disagreed with these conclusions"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cfootball1']

Only one Toronto study confirmed positive effects of smoke free restaurants and bars. "However, not all researchers agree that this was a causal relationship, and a 2009 study of many smoke-free ordinances in the United States disagreed with these conclusions"[/QUOTE]

There is no positive effect of removing little children from high-class restaurants either

Nor is their any positive effects for requiring people to wear shoes or dress properly in restaurants...

Yet why is it they do that?:roll:
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker'] you mean like the guys who are having private sex but the police saw them through the window and busted in arresting them for sodomy?

or the guy smoking weed in his parked car and gets dragged out by police

What is REALLY A crime and what is prejudice by righteous individuals who want to exact their moral authority on the rest[/QUOTE]

:applause: Very precise post.
 
Well you have to understand, when "some" people say "decent society" they aren't including gay rights. Most of the time it means something resembling Leave it to Beaver.
 
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/01/31/lawmaker_compares_health_exchange_to_holocaust.html

As the debate over Idaho's proposed state health insurance exchange heats up, state Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll (R) compared the role of insurance companies to "the Jews boarding the trains to concentration camps," saying the federal government is using private insurers and in the future will "pull the trigger" on them, the Idaho Spokesman-Review reports.

Nuxoll defended the analogy: "I felt badly for the Jews - it wasn't just Jews, but Jews, and Christians, and Catholics, and priests. My thing was they didn't know what was going on. The insurance companies are not realizing what's going to end up in their demise."
Click to expand...
Right. It's the insurance companies that are being hoodwinked. :roll:

Oh, also Godwin's Law.
 
I really wish people would drop this "unnatural" crap. You know that homosexuality has been observed in nature, right? So how the fuck is it unnatural?
 
[quote name='Clak']I really wish people would drop this "unnatural" crap. You know that homosexuality has been observed in nature, right? So how the fuck is it unnatural?[/QUOTE]

There's a funny Ricky Gervais stand-up from a couple years ago that talks about this. Wish I could remember what it was called.

Edit: Here we go. I guess this is the full thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg
 
[quote name='Clak']I really wish people would drop this "unnatural" crap. You know that homosexuality has been observed in nature, right? So how the fuck is it unnatural?[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if it's "natural" or "unnatural". Besides, incest with adolescent children has been observed in nature, so that's a pretty week argument.

Relations between consenting adults are not the concern of those not in the relationship. It's that simple.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It doesn't matter if it's "natural" or "unnatural". Besides, incest with adolescent children has been observed in nature, so that's a pretty week argument.

Relations between consenting adults are not the concern of those not in the relationship. It's that simple.[/QUOTE]

Amen brutha
 
You know I was reading an article earlier that talked about how the NRA swells it's ranks. Some "gun clubs" actually require members to become NRA members.

edit- The fuck, you assholes leave Nimoy out of this.

Oh and to bob, I'm not the one making the dumbass argument that it's unnatural. I do love how you take the weasel way out and keep it about privacy though. I don't think you and your wife have the right to fuck either, but it's not really my business, so meh, right? Nothing about standing up for anyone's rights, it's just not your business.
 
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/02/07/congressman_fires_spokesman_for_tweet.html

Rep. Raul Labrador's (R-IA) fired his spokesman after he mistakenly tweeted in the name of his boss about his admiration for two actresses pole dancing in a Super Bowl ad, the Idaho Statesman reports.

The tweet, "Me likey Broke Girls," was deleted after 14 seconds but is archived on a website that collects deleted tweets from politicians.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Note: Make sure you're not logged in to the Twitter account of your boss when you're tweeting something.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Anybody else go on gawker today and see the paintings W did that were hacked earlier today? I'm surprised that I kind of liked them.[/QUOTE]

Not too shabby, but nothing I'd hang in my house.
 
Oh, man, I only recognize 5 (+ new dude in SC to replace Jim DeMint). I'm slacking.

Senator Bottom Left Corner should get a new portrait. Creeeeeeepy.
 
Roy Blunt of Missouri, father of former governor Matt Blunt.

If ever I had to slice off a man's face to use as a mask, I would totally go for that one. It just looks so... roomy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top