BainsBane Propositioned By A Pimp

[wasp69]

See, I had no idea.  I could be making $10 blowing some skeezy guy right now.  Clearly I've squandered my potential.   

Well, at least you know you can always make a career change if necessary.

[wasp69]

I just want to know which one of you is Pintobean.  My money is on you. 

Heh...  I thought one could expect better from a member of $kinner's Einsatzgruppen.

You should try taking lessons from Crazy Aunt Judy on how to sleuth.  You could upgrade from completely incompetent to mediocre.

[Bad Dog]

Well, at least you know you can always make a career change if necessary.

Times are hard right now, she might want to rethink her price structure.  Jugs ain't getting any younger.

[wasp69]

MADem fabricated quotes that seemed to be from an alert he decided I had written.  I had not.  That was the proof he came up with as so-called evidence against me.  It was low and dishonest. 

The link is there, the watching world can see if MADem is right or "Doctor" Brown has been slandered.

[wasp69]

The only purpose of that clinic requirement was to shut down family planning clinics. It's one thing to oppose abortion and another to spew bullshit about laws that seek to do away with it. 

Kermit Gosnell agrees with your analysis, DUmmie.

[Bad Dog]

Heh...  I thought one could expect better from a member of $kinner's Einsatzgruppen.

You should try taking lessons from Crazy Aunt Judy on how to sleuth.  You could upgrade from completely incompetent to mediocre.

Heh, she's got her 100 posts but, she's never going to find the secret "mole" forum.

[wasp69]

Heh, she's got her 100 posts but, she's never going to find the secret "mole" forum.

Considering what I've seen from this cretin, I don't think it could hit its own ass with both hands.

[CollectivismMustDie]

Well, at least you know you can always make a career change if necessary.

A change to some honest employment would do her some good.


CMD

[txradioguy]

So is it the number of laws or how easy it is to acquire a gun or an abortion?  Do you need to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound before buying a gun?  Do you need to travel hundreds of miles?  No and no.  It's not even close. 

A 14 year old girl can skip school go to the local Planned Parenthood and get an abortion and in most states the parents will never be notified. 

Please explain to me exactly how that somehow more complicated or harder to get than buying a weapon legally. in in the U.S. ?

[txradioguy]

Can we at least stop using the lefts terminology on this? They use 20 weeks to make it seem like the pregnancy isn't that far along...so what they're advocating for isn't that gruesome.   

But the fact of the matter is 20 weeks = 5 months along. The baby can survive on its own at that point. There's no hiding your "baby bump".

By saying 20 weeks we are buying into the lefts speech codes

[txradioguy]

Davis didn't filibuster for late term abortions.  She filibustered for access to abortions, period. 
Try reading what I actually write rather than attributing steretypical views to me.

She filibustered the vote on abortions after 5 months.  By that time you're over half way through the pregnancy...how much more "late term" can you get?

[txradioguy]

Evidence?

The correct figure to use is the CBO’s analysis of the president’s 2013 budget, which clocks in at $3.72 trillion.

 So this is what we end up with:

 2008:  $2.98 trillion

 2009:  $3.27 trillion

 2010:  $3.46 trillion

 2011: $3.60 trillion

 2012: $3.65 trillion

 2013:  $3.72 trillion

 Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.


Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

 2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

 2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

 2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

 So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting.

 One common way to measure federal spending is to compare it to the size of the overall U.S. economy. That at least puts the level into context, helping account for population growth, inflation and other factors that affect spending. Here’s what the White House’s own budget documents show about spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product): 

 2008: 20.8 percent

 2009: 25.2 percent

 2010: 24.1 percent

 2011: 24.1 percent

 2012: 24.3 percent

 2013: 23.3 percent

 In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html?wprss=rss_fact-checker

[txradioguy]

That is an assertion, not evidence.

No actually it's a really well sourced and researched study.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/epa-power-plant-regulations-a-backdoor-energy-tax
 

Additionally, coal is one of many industries.

It's one of many industries...like farming that are suffering at the hands of the EPA.
  

Wages are a key issue.

Yes and under this President median income has dropped sharply and will continue to do so.

Some Republicans want to abolish the minimum wage so that we can compete with third world countries in terms of labor costs

Link?

What do you think that will do to the the average wage and ability of women to be homemakers?

If a woman chooses to be a stay at hom mom then obviously they aren't worried about minimum wage and they've found someone that has a good enough job to allow her to stay at home.

[obumazombie]

Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion.  If the state imposes religious faith, there can be no freedom.

Again you are absolutely wrong in your analysis. The imposition of faith is not the same as freedom from religion. The state must not establish a religion, but it must allow the free exercise thereof. The free exercise of religion allow it to be a civilizing influence on society and it's government.
You are operating under the misconception that government and religion must be separated.

Quote from: Freeper on January 13, 2014, 05:16:24 pm

I love how you say you don't want to impose your morals when it comes to abortion, but when it comes to guns you have no problem trying to impose your morals.

You don't personally oppose abortion, when you actively fight to allow it you don't oppose it.

 [Begin bane quote] If someone has an abortion, it doesn't hurt me.  When criminals have guns, it does.  My car has the bullet holes to prove it.

Again you are dreadfully wrong.
Every abortion cheapens life. How can the thugs who allegedly shot your car value life if the country they live in doesn't.
That's the thing about libs. you don't see that actions have consequences.
You don't want your or anyone else's irresponsible actions to have any negative consequences.
You want to do whatever feels good, and have that be the end of it.
Even when someone sage in the ways of the world predicts the kinds of consequences that accompany certain actions, you pooh pooh them.
Then when said consequences become manifest you deny the relation to the act, or that anyone ever warned you about the linkage.
Just like owebumacare.
Many conservatives predicted all the horrendous results we are seeing now. But did libs listen ?
No way Jose.

[txradioguy]

If the state imposes religious faith, there can be no freedom.

When did we become like England and impose an official religion of the United States?

[Big Dog]

Seems like we hear pretty often of some prominent conservative or evangelical that tries to force a woman into having an abortion.

If we "hear pretty often" of prominent conservatives or evangelical Christians forcing women to have abortions, it should be easy for you to name some.

Name ten.

No?

OK, name five.

Still a no-go?

Two?

Hmmm....

How about one? Just one?

If you can name one "prominent conservative conservative or evangelical" who forced a woman to have an abortion, I'll cede your point.

[Big Dog]

I hate insurance.  I hate having to buy car insurance.  I hate insurance companies.

Alex, that is like saying "I hate safety glasses". People who hate insurance don't understand insurance. This is not the thread for a proper discussion of the economy of risk and the value of insurance. If you want to talk about economics, I'm your huckleberry; start an econ thread and I'll talk to you there.

I believe healthcare should be a right.  Our healthcare system is the least cost effective in the world.  I support single payer, unapolegetically.  We could dole out less corporate welfare and defense spending and support a far more cost effective single payer system that would save all of us money.  

Healthcare is the provision of specific goods and services. Companies make the goods, companies provide the facilities, and people provide the services. They do so voluntarily; both your family doctor and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals choose to engage in those businesses, with the reasonable expectation of profiting.

If healthcare was a "right", then the companies and people who make and provide healthcare would be obligated to provide those goods and services, with no expectation of remuneration (since you claim a "right" to their product). Choice has become compulsion; your doctor is now your slave.

One man's right can't create an obligation on another man. That is the antithesis of "equal rights", something you claim to support.

[Big Dog]

I can't drink much wine.  I prefer beer or margaritas.  The little bottle definitely wasn't enough.  I won't try that again.  I was trying to be frugal.

Think about the economy of scale. That is the best reason of all to buy wine in big bottles.

OK, second best. The best reason is having lots of wine.

[Splashdown]

One man's right can't create an obligation on another man. That is the antithesis of "equal rights", something you claim to support.

That right there is the epitome of conservatism. Perfectly stated. Hi-5.

[Skul]

I just want to know which one of you is Pintobean.  My money is on you. 

[wasp69]

Now, how did I miss this?

Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion.

The Establishment Clause dictates no such thing, nor is there the scantest historical evidence otherwise.  Wouldn't it be smart to better understand a document you would see undone before you actually undo it?

[wasp69]

One man's right can't create an obligation on another man. That is the antithesis of "equal rights", something you claim to support.

Just like everything else to a lib, it's a lie.  Lip service is paid to "equal rights" and "individual freedom" when their actions are anything but.

[dutch508]

and so is my wife. ex-wife. girlfriend.

[dutch508]

Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion. If the state imposes religious faith, there can be no freedom.

However, the State is not imposing faith. You are not required to attend the Church of America, headed by the President. When the separation clause was being debated the reference was the Church of England, Ol' Henry VIII's toy. Although to be fair the State didn't mandate membership in the CofE, but you didn't get far in life if you didn't.

You should read up on it, it's interesting stuff and will give you better understanding why the founding fathers thought as they did about 'official religions'.

[dutch508]

So what if parents don't?  You think society has no interest in educating young people on how to avoid that kind of trouble?  Abstinence only education has been shown to be counter productive.  Kids who receive that rather than comprehensive sex ed are more likely to get pregnant.

let me pull a DUmpmonkie card... "source?"