2
rob9 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean the headline is true, isn't it? That's basically the textbook definition of racism. (in the animal context you might call it speciesism)

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to be more careful.

4
rob9 4 points ago +4 / -0

Why would you hide it if you have to fear no consequences?

4
rob9 4 points ago +4 / -0

The federal government matters immensely.

Most importantly immigration. Look at the border voting districts in Texas for example. It will literally not matter how involved you get there as a Republican in the future because your voter base got replaced.

And this will happen in more and more districts if the federal government is not in control of an anti-immigration hardliner. And reversing this effect is completely impossible. (unless we get someone who deports citizens based on ethnicity)

Other federal issues are taxes, large scale economic policies (tariffs, China, jobs to Mexico, etc.), energy/oil, gun rights (assault weapon ban), etc.

3
rob9 3 points ago +3 / -0

We could bring them to him.

9
rob9 9 points ago +9 / -0

They also were the historic Bolsheviks.

3
rob9 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah anyone who was even somewhat familiar with the history of W would know he has done this forever and mostly as a hobby. It’s nothing like Biden’s obvious money laundering scheme.

Could still be a money laundering/payoff thing if he sold his paintings for half a million. For which I could not find any info online so he seems to be in the clear. (or just more interested in hiding it)


But with the rest of your post I can not agree. We need to start painting with broad strokes if we want to achieve anything.

Every Republican in politics is just MUH UNIPARTY NEOCON RINO.

Yes maybe there are good republicans in power. But at the very least they are ineffective and unable to do anything. So who cares if they get caught in the crossfire.

Every conservative doctor endorsing vaccines is a SHILL.

Who cares whether he is a shill, a evil traitor or just a non-informed idiot who parrots what his bosses tell him. He is useless and should be discarded.

Everyone who disagrees with anyone here on anything is MUH TRAITOR.

Yes. Everybody who is not with us is against us, was a phrase our artist from above coined.

Can we disagree on details? Maybe. Can we disagree on what needs to be done? Yes, but that makes the disagreeing person definitely not an ally.

Apparently, even Trump is a UNIPARTY NEOCON RINO to most people here because he didn’t get himself killed to bail out a bunch of larping fools that got him blacklisted from every major organization / platform in our country on January 6.

That's right. Because before January 6th the media was his ally and would broadcast his election message 24 hours right? Come on, I thought we were way past "just think of the optics"

11
rob9 11 points ago +11 / -0

She doesn't think that and she doesn't care.

She wants that sweet virtue, because it might feel nice and also equals money and fame. And it does work brilliantly: does anyone know the name of the girls next to her? Is the girl next to her a victoria secret spokesperson/model?

5
rob9 5 points ago +6 / -1

I've gotten quite a severe headache after visiting my parents who got their first shot on the same day.

If I had the choice again I definitely would wait to visit for a couple days/weeks.

5
rob9 5 points ago +5 / -0

And the problem is the last sentence of the article: (https://archive.is/hxtvb)

A representative for Rae reached out to BuzzFeed and provided the following statement: "She had not liked them, did not see them as liked on her phone, etc. As you can see on the Tweets you have reported about, the discrepancy has been resolved."

People are just so weak. Oh someone found something they think is controversial, I better apologize, or unlike some posts on twitter.

If anything this should lead people to double down on their positions..

2
rob9 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we could only separate from these parasites...

Nah giving up isn't an option. Parasites have to be eradicated.

1
rob9 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, streaming accomplishes the same "pirate" goals

How? Someone creates a site, you stream/download the content. You do nothing but consume the content and are completely dependent on the link site and the file hoster.

Torrenting (if you are a decent human being and keep your ratios up) shares the content, you are a part of keeping it available and thus you are entitled to wear an eye patch.

I use torrent as well, but I am convinced when it comes to movies most of you just torrent because that is just the way you have done it for ten years.

With a (trusted) VPN you should be good. Or I personally use a seedbox.

And like I said, even if we forget the philosophical stuff, Torrents usually have way better quality and speed.

Back when I was streaming content both were horrible on the sites I used. Unless someone was hosting on mega, where speeds where great, but you had to download which kind of destroys the convenience so you can just torrent at that point.

2
rob9 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's really interesting how quickly words spread and get used universally.

Bidens blatant dementia is described as gaffes in almost every article, whether they are more critical or supportive.

Would be an interesting research topic, to see who used this word first, what other outlets used during this time and how it spread around.

24
rob9 24 points ago +24 / -0

Probably better to just stop consuming this modern media since almost everything is blatant propaganda now, and consuming it might affect yourself or others around you.

1
rob9 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is usually faster and/or better quality and I actually like that I upload and share stuff myself. Being a bit of a "screw the big media moguls pirate" and all that jazz.

1
rob9 1 point ago +1 / -0

But your post was specifically about law makers and abortion? So laws seem pretty relevant.

Is it scary to you the realization, that what holds society together are good manner and good morals … not good laws?

That is true to some extent. Most people are bound by their morals. Which are different for every person on the planet.

So a lot of people are mostly kept in check by laws. See the riots after the average police shooting: A large subsection of society knows that laws will not be enforced, so they start stealing, destroying, injuring and killing.

A much smaller number of people steal or burn down building during times were laws are enforced.

Whether we should live together with people with such morals might be a interesting discussion, especially since they have significant long term influence on the laws themselves.

2
rob9 2 points ago +2 / -0

Frankly, I don’t trust government to [..] take control of my medical decisions

That is sensible. Abortion isn't a medical decision though, it is murder of another human being. And even the most libertarian person on the planet will say that the government should prevent murder.

You can’t write a useful law until you can precisely define the terms. 90% of conservatives can’t give you a single scientifically and philosophically reasonable boundary between what isn’t an abortion directly before, but is an abortion directly after.

That would also be my argument. Can anyone make any reasonable argument behind a first trimester cut-off for example? I certainly haven't heard any.

So, since we're talking about the most innocent form of human life here, we should use the most careful standard we have. Which is conception (egg and sperm combine, a unique DNA gets produced, etc)

I haven't heard good arguments how it could be abortion before conception, since it's just sperm and an egg.


Another way could be to weigh up the possible right infractions if you are somewhat utilitarian. (although I think the argument above is sound) Assume the following situations

We have a law banning abortion after conception, but we find out 200 years later that human-life only magically begins at the first trimester and that there is nothing before that. What happened: women had to complete the pregnancy and you have some women and doctors serving life sentences without any cause. Which is not great. (there are also advantages like children being born, and things like casual sex and depravity would probably decrease, which I would think is good)

Now another situation: we have a law allowing abortion until the first trimester but we find out 200 years later that life truly begins at conception. Now we have murdered 200.000.000 babies and gained casual sex without a condom.

Pretty easy decision if you ask me

12
rob9 12 points ago +12 / -0

Our rights are "chiseled in granite", the U.S. Constitution, which was obtained by 3/4th of the States, and cannot be stolen by a simple majority in Congress!

A piece of paper has and will never defend or guarantee the rights of yourself or a state.

Your states militia or violence by yourself will maybe defend them. (which didn't happen with any other unconstitutional gun law, so I wouldn't hold my breath)

1
rob9 1 point ago +1 / -0

RINOs love the abortion issue precisely because they can’t solve it

Of course they could if they wanted to.

But they do not want to, because it is such a great source of funding, voter mobilization, etc.

view more: Next ›