bullets13

    absolutely, as it totally negates the content.

[Hidden Content]

it reads like a bogus propaganda article, it's definitely on a bogus propaganda site, and it's on a topic that many people really aren't that worried about these days anyway. at some point you guys are going to realize that no matter how many of these articles you guys post and high five each other about, nobody else takes them seriously.

    How concerned would you be if i started posting issues brought up on liberal websites? and i'm not talking about cnn and the like, i mean liberal blog-type websites ran by random lefties on the internet. if you want me to be concerned, at least post a fox article. they're clearly biased conservative, but they're a legitimate news source.

how much money did you donate to this "news site" at the bottom of the article, NOTB?

    sinner. ;)

I didn't say it was wrong. I wasn't asked if it was wrong. I was asked why they wouldn't vote republican. I just stated why.

    you're getting your poor people mixed up. Mexicans are not coming to the US for free stuff. The reason that unvalidated or undocumented people support the left is because the left supports the unvalidated and undocumented. The right screams for them all to be shipped back south (at least until they need a good price on that new deck they're building). I'm with you on the free stuff and why some sectors vote democrats, but that's not why THIS particular sector does.

No, i personally don't think so. A lot of people, especially those from older generations, want to say that things are worse now. i don't think they're worse, they're just different. there are major issues affecting us now, but there always have been issues. there are major issues that divide the country based on social beliefs, but there always have been. and social media brings those issues into a much sharper focus now. but no, i don't believe things are worse now than before. as for America being a laughing stock around the world, not hardly. there's a reason people from all over the world move here, and there's a reason that countries all over the world hate us. we have it really, really good over here.

    absolutely not. but do i believe that the right would be far more accomodating to the practice if unvalidated citizens were voting republican? absolutely.

I'm not sure what's more unsettling... that someone would destroy a million dollar vase in a museum, or that a vase made by someone who's still living, that looks like a vase a novice could make, and with a paint job that I myself could do, is worth a million dollars.

[Hidden Content]

    No different than politicians in texas gerrymandering districts a couple of years back to decrease the amounts of democrats in power. both sides abuse their power in order to increase their power, and affilliates of both sides "play politics on one side of the aisle while giving a pass to the other." If illegal aliens voting helped republicans, not only would democrats be acting the same way that republicans are now, but republicans would be acting the same way that dems are now. it would be total role-reversal.

    Well, a lot of the population is pro-choice, including myself. that being said, the LAW is also pro-choice. so if what they're doing is legal, you might as well look at the work that they do that benefits you as well. i personally would rather my tax dollars go to abortion and birth control than to unwanted children that i'll have to support for 18-years with my tax dollars (at least).

    I suppose it's in how you want to divide the numbers, but i'd agree that 10% is a valid number. that being said, 90% of their clients do not get abortions. So i get it, you hate abortions, and many people do. I respect that. but this does not take away from the fact that 90% of their clients, AND 97% of the services they provide have nothing to do with abortions, and are very valuable to the poor of our country. I'd also challenge anybody to say that any entity providing free birth control to the poor in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies that you and i will pay for (both during pregnancy and as long as the child receives welfare, medicaid, chips, WIC, etc.) or that might end up as an abortion is not doing a great service for our country by doing so. So while you and i may disagree about abortion, i can respect your view on it. But PP is not strictly an abortion clinic, or even mostly an abortion clinic, or even a good bit a an abortion clinic. it's a free women's health clinic that also happens to provide abortions. And no matter how much you may dislike the abortion aspect of it, there are many aspects of PP that are extremely valuable.

   I based on their "news topics": Abortion, Bioethics, Contraception, Culture of Life, Editorial, Euthanasia, Faith, Family, Freedom, Homosexuality, Newsbytes, Politics, Population Control, Stem Cell. This is clearly a far-right propoganda site. It would be like me posting an article from a far-left one. I don't know of any, but i'm sure there are just as many as on the left as on the right.

just FYI, about 3% of PP's health services involve abortion. Their main focus is on prevention of unintended pregnancies, rather than termination of those already conceived. Whether or not you agree with abortion, that is a miniscule part of what they do, and they provide a TON of other valuable services.

   Fair enough. my comment had nothing to do with your comment. ;)

That could be completely fabricated. maybe it's just the fact that it's poorly written and on a fake news site, but it sure reads like a piece of fiction. I'm just saying. It is all based on an interview posted by a church on their website. a church that is obviously against abortion. it wouldn't much serve their purpose if she said "it was very humane and by the book".

    It's the new #2 behind homosexuality ;)

I don't care which side of the argument you fall on, this legislation is a joke.

Maybe, maybe not. I think there are more hybrids today then there used to be. A lot more people are going different directions on different issues. I'm a good example. Some things I agree with you guys on, and some things I get the entire board mad at me.

The bad thing about this whole situation is that extremist gun activists are backing up Derek Poe. I personally own each of the weapons he's used in his stunts, but i would never dream of doing what he's done. He's staging publicity stunts to try and generate interest in his business under the guise of "demonstrating his rights." Local gun owners have already been negatively affected by this, as we can no longer conceal carry in Parkdale Mall because of their reaction to his stunt. The thing about Texas law is that there is no explicit law banning the open carry of a long gun, but there is also no law saying it's okay. it's essentially legal by omission. This omission allows hunters to carry a rifle down the road to a stand, or a gun enthusiast to carry a rifle into or out of a gun range or similar business. I have to believe that most people with a modicum of common sense can step back and say that there is no practical reason to carry an AR-15 through a crowded mall, and it defies logic that someone would do so and then claim to be shocked when people panic. "Because I have a right to" does not make the action okay. If the small minority of extremist gun owners keep pulling stunts like these, laws will begun to be passed limiting open carry, and then the same people that cause it to happen will be demonstrating and protesting and complaining about it.

Haha, this guy's as bad as Derek Poe. He deserves what he gets, since the SAFE act is supposed to be all about responsible gun ownership, and has limited many of the rights of gun owners. I'd say being too stupid to realize you have a gun on your hip when you walk into an elementary school is not responsible. he deserves what he gets.

That doesn't mean the fans aren't complicit. And it's different when the player is a little older and more mature, plus making millions of dollars to put up with it. This kid's only two years removed from high school. Would you have a problem with it if he was a 17-year-old high schooler?