Maybe we should just elect Trump president

ggw wrote:
vansmack wrote:
Space wrote:
Your 3% figure is meaningless and silly.


Make it 100%, I don't care.  Doesn't change the premise - the Hyde Amendment means no Federal dollars can be used…


Which is exactly why they should spin off the baby-killing arm into an independent standalone entity funded through private donations.  Then the de-funders wouldn't have a case.

kinda been my thinking too…but I guess the fear is that if they split it off it will be an easier target with little room to defend it's reason for being (against the religious right that is)
ggw wrote:

Which is exactly why they should spin off the baby-killing arm into an independent standalone entity funded through private donations.  Then the de-funders wouldn't have a case.


Gee, what objective rhetoric you use in calling it their baby-killing arm. I prefer to call it The Safe Place for Women's Private Choices.
Relaxer wrote:
ggw wrote:

Which is exactly why they should spin off the baby-killing arm into an independent standalone entity funded through private donations.  Then the de-funders wouldn't have a case.


Gee, what objective rhetoric you use in calling it their baby-killing arm. I prefer to call it The Safe Place for Women's Private Choices.


I am objectively in favor of ready access to the Private Choice.  A lot of positive externalities to killing the unwanted ones.
nothing will placate the opponents of planned parenthood, including a non-profit governance maneuver
ggw wrote:
Looks like Space Freely's views are in the mainstream…..in North Carolina.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/new-poll-finds-anti-muslim-sentiment-frighteningly-high/


If you're going to attempt to post something that speaks for me, you'd be better off posting this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLN9ZHNA_3c

Note: Ben Stiller is my guy, not Casey Kasem.
America, has to always hate someone.  first it was black people, then jewish people, then women people, then gay people, then fat people, now muslim people.  I wonder, who will be next.
walk,on,by wrote:
I wonder, who will be next.

comma-abusing people.
damn
walk,on,by wrote:
America, has to always hate someone.  first it was black people, then jewish people, then women people, then gay people, then fat people, now muslim people.  I wonder, who will be next.


Socilalists and Atheists get the least love. Followed by Muslims, evengelical Christians, and gays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/20/ben-carson-says-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president-many-americans-agree/

walk,on,by wrote:
damn

I know, you seem to be getting it from all sides in the past week
Space wrote:
walk,on,by wrote:
America, has to always hate someone.  first it was black people, then jewish people, then women people, then gay people, then fat people, now muslim people.  I wonder, who will be next.


Socilalists and Atheists get the least love. Followed by Muslims, evengelical Christians, and gays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/20/ben-carson-says-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president-many-americans-agree/



the good thing about being a socilalist atheist is they are hard to pick out in a line up
but they do tend to be found in coffee shops, so avoid them when the witch hunts begin
Maybe we should just elect Carson president

Ryssdal: Assuming you win, and we have in January of 2017, President Carson, what is your government going to look like?

Carson: Well it?s going to look like something that is looking out for every segment of our society. It?s going to be a government that recognizes that we only have 330 million people, and we?re competing on a global scale, global stage against China, India, both of whom have over a billion people. We need to maximize the potential of every single one of our people. You know, we need to understand that education is the great divide in our nation. There?s going to be a much more emphasis on educational choice. Also, recognizing that if we get defense wrong, nothing else matters, because we live in a hostile world. So you?re going to see our military capabilities improve quite substantially. You?re going to see us really taking care of our veterans rather than just talking about it. Recognizing that we have a 14 percent decrease in people applying for our volunteer military. That?s going to hurt us badly in the long run. You?re going to see us concentrating on our vulnerabilities, like our electrical grid, which is woefully vulnerable right now, from a number of possibilities. You?re going to see us beef up our cyber capabilities substantially, you?re going to see us respond to people who attack us in a way that they will never forget. You're going to see us get back into space, understanding that so many inventions came out of the space program. We cannot get behind in innovation, and in the future, he who controls space controls the Earth.

You're going to see much more proactive stance towards someone like Putin, you know, we're going to be much more active throughout the whole Baltic basin area, Eastern Europe, we're going to reestablish missile defense program, we're going to have more than one or two armored brigades in that area. We're gonna stand up to him, every place in the Middle East, we're not gonna back down. We're going to use our energy resources in an appropriate way, get rid of the energy exportation rules uh, that are archaic, put into place in the 1970s. We don't need those anymore. We're going to use the EPA to work with business, industry and academia to find the cleanest, most environmentally friendly ways to exploit our tremendous energy resources. We're going to use those to make Europe dependent on us for energy rather than Putin, put him back in his little box where he belongs. We're going to be taking a whole geopolitical strategy that is proactive, and not reactive.

Ryssdal: And just so I'm clear, you're going to do this while balancing the budget, not raising the debt and cutting the size of the government?

Carson: Exactly.


Ryssdal: OK.
The most absurd thing in that is his idea that the US will, one day, be the natural resources provider for Europe instead of Russia and the middle East. That's just so insane it betrays a complete lack of understanding of geography and simple science.
so who's the bigger clown - trump or carson?
sweetcell wrote:
so who's the bigger clown - trump or carson?


I mean, they're both rapeshit crazy stupid mess-making idiots, but at least Trump is entertaining. Carson is one of those people who has perfected the art of confident delivery. He just seems so sure of what he's saying with his pronouncements of how easy it would be to make American great again. So if you don't want to think very hard – which describes many, many Republicans – then it's easy to say, well I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
Relaxer wrote:
sweetcell wrote:
so who's the bigger clown - trump or carson?


I mean, they're both rapeshit crazy stupid mess-making idiots, but at least Trump is entertaining. Carson is one of those people who has perfected the art of confident delivery. He just seems so sure of what he's saying with his pronouncements of how easy it would be to make American great again. So if you don't want to think very hard – which describes many, many Republicans – then it's easy to say, well I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
I was going to type up something very similar to this. Carson is definitely the more "dangerous" candidate because some people actually believe there's substance there opposed to Trump. But that really doesn't address Sweet's question. Dangerous =/= crazy.