CDZ Donald Trump's Top Ten Failures

[Liminal]

Loves people, works hard, a fighter, a leader, and is hated by most of the people he will have to work with as president. Trump wouldn't hire someone with those qualifications and neither would the American voters.

Yes, voters are sick of professional politicians who don't delivery on their promises but that doesn't mean they're ready to hire a president that thinks bombing the Iraqi oil fields will stop ISIS, doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and uses the term immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Voters have elected commander and chiefs who weren't veterans, but not draft dodgers. Almost every promise Trump has made requires strong support from Congress, yet his experience with Congress has been limited to name calling and lobbying.

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

The fucked up invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.

 

[Flopper]

Loves people, works hard, a fighter, a leader, and is hated by most of the people he will have to work with as president. Trump wouldn't hire someone with those qualifications and neither would the American voters.

Yes, voters are sick of professional politicians who don't delivery on their promises but that doesn't mean they're ready to hire a president that thinks bombing the Iraqi oil fields will stop ISIS, doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and uses the term immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Voters have elected commander and chiefs who weren't veterans, but not draft dodgers. Almost every promise Trump has made requires strong support from Congress, yet his experience with Congress has been limited to name calling and lobbying.

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

Trump is the topic not Obama

 

[Flopper]

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

The fucked up invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.

Although the Bush and Obama administration share some of the blame, the growth of ISIS was fueled by leaders and sympathizers in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. However, with or without US intervention, organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda would still exist because Islamic fundamentalism is slowly dying and has been for over a hundred years. Western economic and military intervention into these cultures is speeding up the process which is making them a target. In the long run secularism will win out because that's the direction the world is moving, more economic freedom, more goods and services, more freedom and equality for women, and more blending of cultures and ideas. This is the real enemy of Islamic fundamentalist organizations; an enemy it can't defeat.

 

[mudwhistle]

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

Trump is the topic not Obama

So what!

Obama's policies got us into this mess!

We have to talk as if Obama exists......not as if he wasn't president.

Once the worthless prick is gone, the situation can be reassessed.

 

[Liminal]

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

The fucked up invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.

Although the Bush and Obama administration share some of the blame, the growth of ISIS was fueled by leaders and sympathizers in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. However, with or without US intervention, organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda would still exist because Islamic fundamentalism is slowly dying and has been for over a hundred years. Western economic and military intervention into these cultures is speeding up the process which is making them a target. In the long run secularism will win out because that's the direction the world is moving, more economic freedom, more goods and services, more freedom and equality for women, and more blending of cultures and ideas. This is the real enemy of Islamic fundamentalist organizations; an enemy it can't defeat.

Had we not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS.

 

[Correll]

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

 

[playtime]

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

 

[Correll]

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

 

[playtime]

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

 

[Correll]

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

 

[playtime]

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

I never said that final choice was mine in a black & white world. A zygote is not a baby. an embryo is not a baby. a fetus before it can live on it's own is not a baby. I would never take that total right away from a woman in a black & white world & I never want back alley butchers ever to make a buck off a female. I never said *you* 'were a bad person' but you wanna think that about yourself--- I say go for it. What I don't want is the GOVERNMENT to take total choice away.

 

[Flopper]

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

The fucked up invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.

Although the Bush and Obama administration share some of the blame, the growth of ISIS was fueled by leaders and sympathizers in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. However, with or without US intervention, organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda would still exist because Islamic fundamentalism is slowly dying and has been for over a hundred years. Western economic and military intervention into these cultures is speeding up the process which is making them a target. In the long run secularism will win out because that's the direction the world is moving, more economic freedom, more goods and services, more freedom and equality for women, and more blending of cultures and ideas. This is the real enemy of Islamic fundamentalist organizations; an enemy it can't defeat.

Had we not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS.

ISIS would probably have existed but certainly wouldn't be spreading through Iraq.

 

[Correll]

Buried in all the Proof by Assertion in there all that I can see that supports your premise, is

that the baby isn't a person because it has "no history" nor "people that depend on it".

You statements seem to imply that you do not support abortion right up to birth, ie "baby forms" not "Baby born".

So, at what point do YOU feel the "fetus" becomes a "person"?

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

I never said that final choice was mine in a black & white world. A zygote is not a baby. an embryo is not a baby. a fetus before it can live on it's own is not a baby. I would never take that total right away from a woman in a black & white world & I never want back alley butchers ever to make a buck off a female. I never said *you* 'were a bad person' but you wanna think that about yourself--- I say go for it. What I don't want is the GOVERNMENT to take total choice away.

So do you support the legal right to have an abortion of a fetus/baby that CAN live on it's own?

If NOT then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

 

[playtime]

16-20 weeks. IMO, when viability outside of the womb occurs, then it should be on a case-case basis but of course if the female can be physically harmed then she

comes first.

Also IMO, a female should know by then if she wants it to proceed no further.

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

I never said that final choice was mine in a black & white world. A zygote is not a baby. an embryo is not a baby. a fetus before it can live on it's own is not a baby. I would never take that total right away from a woman in a black & white world & I never want back alley butchers ever to make a buck off a female. I never said *you* 'were a bad person' but you wanna think that about yourself--- I say go for it. What I don't want is the GOVERNMENT to take total choice away.

So do you support the legal right to have an abortion of a fetus/baby that CAN live on it's own?

If NOT then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

I already answered that question in a previous post when I said that if there was only 2 ways to settle the right to choose... either abortion IS allowed - PERIOD or NO abortion is allowed- PERIOD... then I side with the female on having the RIGHT to terminate.

Fortunately, that isn't how it is right now.... but if it ever came down to it, ROE V WADE STAYS.

I don't think I can make myself any clearer.

 

[Correll]

SECOND TRIMESTER?!

Christ Woman, You just shot down most of your own arguments.

You support

"another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood" for women that don't agree with you.


You support this violating this, for women that disagree with you.

"A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want."

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

I never said that final choice was mine in a black & white world. A zygote is not a baby. an embryo is not a baby. a fetus before it can live on it's own is not a baby. I would never take that total right away from a woman in a black & white world & I never want back alley butchers ever to make a buck off a female. I never said *you* 'were a bad person' but you wanna think that about yourself--- I say go for it. What I don't want is the GOVERNMENT to take total choice away.

So do you support the legal right to have an abortion of a fetus/baby that CAN live on it's own?

If NOT then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

I already answered that question in a previous post when I said that if there was only 2 ways to settle the right to choose... either abortion IS allowed - PERIOD or NO abortion is allowed- PERIOD... then I side with the female on having the RIGHT to terminate.

Fortunately, that isn't how it is right now.... but if it ever came down to it, ROE V WADE STAYS.

I don't think I can make myself any clearer.

BUT in the real world, the question is where to draw the line.

If you support the drawing of the line to save the lives of fetus/babies that CAN survive on their own,
then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

 

[Liminal]

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

The fucked up invasion and occupation of Iraq is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS and the Syrian civil war.

Although the Bush and Obama administration share some of the blame, the growth of ISIS was fueled by leaders and sympathizers in Iraq, Syria, Turkey and the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf. However, with or without US intervention, organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda would still exist because Islamic fundamentalism is slowly dying and has been for over a hundred years. Western economic and military intervention into these cultures is speeding up the process which is making them a target. In the long run secularism will win out because that's the direction the world is moving, more economic freedom, more goods and services, more freedom and equality for women, and more blending of cultures and ideas. This is the real enemy of Islamic fundamentalist organizations; an enemy it can't defeat.

Had we not invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS.

ISIS would probably have existed but certainly wouldn't be spreading through Iraq.

No. ISIS and the Syrian civil war are the direct results of our adventure in Iraq.

 

[playtime]

Real Life is not black & white but it ever had to boil down to all or nothing? Then the female that owns that uterus is all. Personally I would also say by 3-4 months, but those are the limits. 20 weeks still isn't viable.

Christ woman? No need to YELL. LOL.

You aren't debating btw.

I just got you to admit that you do not support your own premise.

You accept the principle of the Law being used to force women to carry "Babies" to term after a point in time that YOU consider then babies.

Thus, all your hysteria about me being a bad person for wanting to oppress you is debunked.

I never said that final choice was mine in a black & white world. A zygote is not a baby. an embryo is not a baby. a fetus before it can live on it's own is not a baby. I would never take that total right away from a woman in a black & white world & I never want back alley butchers ever to make a buck off a female. I never said *you* 'were a bad person' but you wanna think that about yourself--- I say go for it. What I don't want is the GOVERNMENT to take total choice away.

So do you support the legal right to have an abortion of a fetus/baby that CAN live on it's own?

If NOT then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

I already answered that question in a previous post when I said that if there was only 2 ways to settle the right to choose... either abortion IS allowed - PERIOD or NO abortion is allowed- PERIOD... then I side with the female on having the RIGHT to terminate.

Fortunately, that isn't how it is right now.... but if it ever came down to it, ROE V WADE STAYS.

I don't think I can make myself any clearer.

BUT in the real world, the question is where to draw the line.

If you support the drawing of the line to save the lives of fetus/babies that CAN survive on their own,
then you agree in principle with the Government, with laws written with the input of men, overruling the "CHOICE" of the mother.

And in that case your earlier anger is completely uncalled for.

What we have then is a disagreement over a fairly arbitrary decision on where exactly to draw the line.

I personally do. however my personal decision & what I think & how I feel has nothing to do with another females' right over what SHE wants to do.

& versa versa.

I draw the line when someone say NO you can't control your own uterus. I will not 'arbitrarily' draw a line when it matters to the female's choice on what to do. That's why I have a very nice quote from Bernie about this very thing. Now I am finished with this hard right to a total different topic than what this thread is supposta be about. & That's for the freak named Trump.