Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives
Well, I'd hope no kids are reading this thread. It would be a terrible example to set for them.
The irony of this place gets so thick you could spread it on a freakin' bagel.
My question is answered, thanks.
.
Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives
Perfect example right here.
If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?
Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.
.
There's not really any utility in the we did this and they did that game - unless folks today are personally responsible. The messageboarders are so mad at each other because of silly extrapolations like that which some people say as an aside to try and bicker a point - but really, some people take that and internalize it as anger when you wouldn't even think to blame someone today for something that happened in the 1960s in real-life discourse.Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives
Perfect example right here.
If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?
Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.
.
The Democrats used to be the conservatives.
They were responsible for a lot of (not all of) the Jim Crow laws, the opposition to integration, and opposition to busing.
Today, if we had the same codes and laws on the books, conservatives would still be opposed to them only the conservatives identify as Republicans more often than Democrats.
Really, do you have any historical literacy at all?
There's not really any utility in the we did this and they did that game - unless folks today are personally responsible. The messageboarders are so mad at each other because of silly extrapolations like that which some people say as an aside to try and bicker a point - but really, some people take that and internalize it as anger when you wouldn't even think to blame someone today for something that happened in the 1960s in real-life discourse.Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives
Perfect example right here.
If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?
Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.
.
The Democrats used to be the conservatives.
They were responsible for a lot of (not all of) the Jim Crow laws, the opposition to integration, and opposition to busing.
Today, if we had the same codes and laws on the books, conservatives would still be opposed to them only the conservatives identify as Republicans more often than Democrats.
Really, do you have any historical literacy at all?
You're one of the ones that is better than doing that shit. C'mon, playa!!
You're opening the door for the old.......... democrats became republicans and republicans became democrats argument - that's all I'm saying and it's of no real utility in 2019 TBH.There's not really any utility in the we did this and they did that game - unless folks today are personally responsible. The messageboarders are so mad at each other because of silly extrapolations like that which some people say as an aside to try and bicker a point - but really, some people take that and internalize it as anger when you wouldn't even think to blame someone today for something that happened in the 1960s in real-life discourse.Most kids today have no idea about forced bussing, Jim Crow laws, or even the term segregation. All courtesy of conservatives
Perfect example right here.
If that is not a text book asinine bed wetting parrot sqauking a practiced sentence like it has been trained too, then what is it? How do you have a "conversation" with an NPC?
Never mind the fact everything it said was done by democrooks, the fact that it believes it, and can not be compelled to understand the facts is the reason I call them posting bots. You get more valuable conversations from rescuing the princess in Zelda games.
.
The Democrats used to be the conservatives.
They were responsible for a lot of (not all of) the Jim Crow laws, the opposition to integration, and opposition to busing.
Today, if we had the same codes and laws on the books, conservatives would still be opposed to them only the conservatives identify as Republicans more often than Democrats.
Really, do you have any historical literacy at all?
You're one of the ones that is better than doing that shit. C'mon, playa!!
I didn't think I was really baiting anyone. Isn't it public knowledge that the Democrats founded the KKK, were heavily in power in the Jim Crow South, opposed busing and a lot of the civil rights legislation in the 60's? The Democrats abandoned the principles behind the organizations and the ordinances....
How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"
It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”
Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.
It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"
It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”
Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.
Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"
It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”
Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.
Where is there a poll on after birth abortions? Can we be rational about our views here - or are we going to engage in hyperbole? I'd honestly like to know how many folks per-capita actually take this view of after birth abortions that's inspiring such emotion.Abortion is a singular topic, and even within that one topic alone there are 100 shades of differing views and 52% of Republicans support Roe v. Wade so - - - it's not some easy, cut and dried topic albeit an emotional one.How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"
It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”
Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.
I can't think of a Republican who support after-birth abortions, just Democrats, like Obama.
It's absurd because the govt. would never let them do it, they dissect other creatures what makes a human more valuable?How absurd from an absurd mind.If it were up to Democrats and 'progressives', Jr. high and high school biology classes would require the kids to perform abortions in order to pass.
Yes, your Party of psychos are getting more and more absurd; they're now pushing to murder babies up to 2 years old, and you gimps will dance around and praise that, cuz, like, a 'scientist said it n stuff !!!"
It should be noted that even a healthy newborn baby does not have the same claim to life as a “person,” according to Singer’s philosophy. “Killing them cannot be equated with killing normal human beings….No infant—disabled or not—has a strong claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.”
Should the Baby Live? -- Michael Poore
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
'Rationalism' at its usual solution to everything, mass murders. And nothing in the way of 'rationalists' having school kids perform abortions as part of their 'rational science' curriculum.