A racoon has more brain function than most conservatives in this forum.

Edited 5/13/2016 16:03:46

Some more, smaller issues:

Donald Trump:
*Against barring folk on the "no-fly" list to buy guns.
*For curbing work unions' legal superpowers.
*Against mandating hiring to based on skinhue, ethnicity, and sex.
*Against mandating health insurance sellers to give birth control as part of the programme.
*For letting businesses have the freedom to refuse any customer based on faith (but for mandating that businesses must serve their customers otherwise, and mandating that for equal jobs must come equal incomes)
*For mandating a photographic identification to vote.
*Against funding small famers.
*For lowering business income tax rates, but not for ending it.
*Transit government pensions into private accounts.
*For slashing public spending until the debt is down.
*For all welfare takers to be tested for drugs, and funding trips to addiction reknacking hubs.
*Against gaoling the folk who allegedly brought about the housing rent economic downfall.
---
*For going on with bulk spying and bugging on allied countries.
*Against closing Guantánamo gaol.
*Against legalising any more drugs for fun.
*For gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
*Against the Senate to hear out the new Supreme Court nominee.
*For racially discriminating against Muslims (for example, patrol of Muslim neighbourhoods).
*For making war on illegal immigration.
*For mandating all immigrants to learn English.
*For basically ending government healthcare, and just giving loans to folk if they need to go to the medclin.
*For more offshore petrol drilling.
*Against funding "unproven technologies" (alternative energy) and more environmental regulations; believes climate change is a hoax and scientists "having loads of fun".
*For uncurbed hydraulic fracturing.
*For making suicide illegal.
*Against mandating that internet sellers make artificial lack.
*For stopping the American space programme.
*Against gay marriage.
*For a bigger sales tax to lower land tax.

Hilary Clinton:
*For funding more alternative energetic programmes besides wind power.
*For national teaching/learning/testing standards and accreditations.
*Against limiting suing powers.
---
*For legalising some drugs for fun.
*For keeping the current public health system.

Bernie Sanders:
*For legalising all drugs for fun.
*For building an one-payer healthcare system.
*Against the death punishment.
---
*For nationalising more land as national parks.
*For funding wind power industry.
*Against mandating that grownups on welfare work.
*For actively taking out references to God from money and governmental stuff.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:44:46

National parks, another Scottish invention.

How, exactly, do you justify an anti-vaccine position as being valid due to Supreme Court ruling and then turn around and want to limit abortion access despite it contradicting Supreme Court ruling?

Rather hypocritical, no?

"National parks, another Scottish invention."
American. Muir may have been a Scot but only the American government followed through with it.

Imperator:

>Claims to be libertarian
>Denies women the right to do what they want with their own body
>Libertarian

How, exactly, do you justify an anti-vaccine position as being valid due to Supreme Court ruling and then turn around and want to limit abortion access despite it contradicting Supreme Court ruling?

I'm not denying the validity or legality of either law, it's just that one I happen to be in favor of (No forced medication) and one I happen to be against.

Also, I'm not anti-vaccination, I'm against forced medication.

>Claims to be libertarian
>Denies women the right to do what they want with their own body
>Libertarian

Firstly I've never claimed to be libertarian; I consider myself to be a classical Liberal. Secondly, I'm fine with women doing what they want with their own bodies, just not with somebody elses body.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:57:47

Vaccines do not work unless they are widely used. The only way to ensure wide use is forced medication.

A fetus is not a body.

Edited 5/13/2016 20:58:18

So in other words, Supreme Court precedence only matters when it agrees with your own stance. Brilliant position.

Vaccines do not work unless they are widely used. The only way to ensure wide use is forced medication.

Vaccines are widely used, only a tiny minority of people choose not to use them.

A fetus is not a body.

Unless you can show me a point at which it turns into a body, the only logical assumption is that it has always been a body.

So in other words, Supreme Court precedence only matters when it agrees with your own stance. Brilliant position.

Again, I'm not denying the validity of any supreme court ruling, although I am personally against them having the power to make laws.

It would be better if congress would pass a law on the topic as should be done, I'm not denying this. I just don't care as much if it's a redundant law that just affirms the ruling.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:05:28

Or maybe you could have a organization that educates folk about what vaccines are, instead of having Naz- I mean our brave soldiers going house to house injecting folk with stuff.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:02:43

A fetus turns into a body at the point in time which it can sustain life on its own. Prior to that, it is a parasite, feeding off another body without which it could not survive. Thus it only becomes a body around ~24 weeks (and that is being generous).

As for vaccines usage, simply check the news to see reports of measles and other deadly diseases returning. Note that most laws/rules governing their use are related to the attendance of public schools. Vaccines are not legally mandated anywhere. Instead, they are only required to attend public school. If you want to bypass vaccines then you are free to teach the child at home or pay for a private school that will accept them.

Your level of hypocrisy is most impressive though. You are against abortion because it negatively impacts another body but in favor or not mandating vaccines despite the fact that failing to do so also negatively impacts another body. Can't really rectify the two...

A fetus turns into a body at the point in time which it can sustain life on its own. Prior to that, it is a parasite, feeding off another body without which it could not survive. Thus it only becomes a body around ~24 weeks (and that is being generous).

By this logic, humans are never truly "bodies" since we're all "Parasites" feeding off of this planet; After all, if you drop one of us into space, we turn into human jerky.

Your level of hypocrisy is most impressive though. You are against abortion because it negatively impacts another body but in favor or not mandating vaccines despite the fact that failing to do so also negatively impacts another body. Can't really rectify the two...

I'm not so much against abortion because it harms the child, which Obviously it does. I'm more against the fact that it's a severe encroachment on the childs liberty to be killed while still in the womb.

The planet isn't a body, given that a body needs to be a living entity. Nice try though. Logic really isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything about it being a body. You're the one who insists that a baby only turns into a human when it can "sustain life on its own".

I simply pointed out that nobody is able to sustain themselves, but are rather reliant on a very controlled environment that exists here on earth; Not unlike the environment that young children need inside the womb in order to live.

Edited 5/13/2016 21:16:41

Vaccines are widely used, only a tiny minority of people choose not to use them.

Even if it was as you say (I don't think it is), one bad apple ruins the rest here very easily.

Unless you can show me a point at which it turns into a body, the only logical assumption is that it has always been a body.

Tell these apart. https://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/embryo/embryoflash.html

All of these are brainless cell agglomerations, but you want to shield them - no sorry, only valuable English life, not the lower Indians' lifes, you want to shield them but not the 10,000 million painfully dying and literally butchered each year, since they're not English? Don't ever call yourself for-life, you're undeniable for-choice, since you want to give folk choice to eat corpses, but not to eat some germkiller?

Or maybe you could have a organization that educates folk about what vaccines are

I can teach you in one sentence: vaccines is a kind of medic technology that stops illnesses in the future.

There's frankly not more to learn than that, unless you want to become a healer or pharmacist.

I already said I wasn't interested in discussing this with you again. Did you think I was lying?

I feel as If we've already come to relative understanding on the issue, as You're totally fine with the idea that children in the womb are indeed children (this is what annoys me the most about pro-choice folks).

Edited 5/13/2016 21:35:35

Vaccines are why I haven't died yet; let's keep them please.

I feel as If we've already come to relative understanding on the issue

I don't feel that - I see that you're just some supremacist who eats butchered corpses, but has the nerve to argue against abortion. And this is just what you say in answer to that - "not interested in discussing", just as much as politicians in America will chat all about Guantánamo Bay, close it or not? but speak not a word of black sites, and essentially are for them since they're not against.

You're totally fine with the idea that children in the womb are indeed children (this is what annoys me the most about pro-choice folks).

Well, it's not an idea, it's a truth, as it is also truth that they are human. But are they characteristically children or human? Anyhow, all I said was that it was more of a legitimate argument if you're vegetarian, but it's very hypocritic or racist if you're not.

Well, it's not an idea, it's a truth

^^There you go, this is our understanding.

I don't think you really understand the amount of people who simply refuse to acknowledge this basic fact, and argue that abortion is not immoral because unborn children are "not really human". You and I may disagree about the value of human life, but this is primarily a theological debate. As far as I'm concerned we're cool.

Edited 5/13/2016 22:21:32