If we had the time and space, we could have made a list a mile long of reasons to not vote for Hillary Clinton. But I really think that’s unnecessary. These four reasons should be more than enough to make anyone decide not to vote for Hillary:http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/raymond-ibrahim/the-rape-of-christopher-stevens/
1. J. Christopher Stephens, U.S. Ambassador, Killed in Benghazi
2. Glen Doherty, U.S. Navy Seal, Killed in Benghazi
3. Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service, Killed in Benghazi
4. Tyrone Woods, U.S. Navy Seal, Killed in Benghazi
If that’s not enough reasons to convince you not to vote for Hillary, I don’t know what will. These men died at the hands of Libyan rebels on September 11, 2012, when their lives could have been saved had the State Department taken action when it knew about the situation.
Doll, Kitten and Brynn, from Massachusetts, married last Autumn and are expecting a daughter in July.
This is so wrong. And it will end so badly. And I feel so bad for that poor child.
And for all the people who said gay marriage wouldn’t lead to plural marriages and animal marriages and whatever, you were wrong.
Why would you not want it to apply to you?
I really don’t understand modern “art.”
Like, just go to France if you don’t want it to apply.
Either way, you’re in America. It still applies.
And I’m sure if you’re in that box and you get arrested, you’ll argue that your rights still apply.
Anyways, keep me away from that box.
the doll test is so sad omfg
WHAT THE FUCK!!! This is heart breaking.
This ripped my heart out.. it killed me…
This broke my heart, everyone should watch it, it’s an important study.
I don’t understand why kids think the white doll is prettier. Like, what are we doing to make it so kids associate two different color dolls with good and bad and pretty and ugly? I usually don’t discuss things like this, but there is something wrong with us if kids associate color with being good and bad. I understand kids wanting a doll that looks like them, but to see a doll as good and evil based on color is sad. I’m sitting here thinking, these dolls are literally the exact same, same face, same everything, just different color. Kids should be thinking that too. They are too young to think one is somehow evil because of their color.
This also makes me nervous because these kids are thinking white is good and white is trustworthy. As a person who thinks every stranger is evil, this scares me. Hitler was like the most evil person to ever exist and he was white as white can get. Obviously. Usually on Law and Order SVU, all the pedos are also white. It worries me that these children are trusting one race over another.
It just makes me sad that these kids already see color as a determining factor. I believe God made us all in His image and we should be happy with how He made us.
Maybe Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should focus more on this then whatever nonsense they try to stir up.
This command comes from pro choicers who believe that abortion is the same as refusing to give blood, and that pregnancy is a charity like giving blood.
And I will prove you are wrong one last time:
Donating blood is comparable to pregnancy, yes. You do share your body fluids with the foetus etc.
BUT refusing to give blood is ENTIRELY incomparable to abortion.
Giving blood to other people is giving life to people that aren’t your responsibility. Whose death you are not causing and cannot cause. If someone halfway across the country that I do not know dies of blood loss, I have not killed them.I have no duty to those people, but refusal to help is passive and abortion is active and there is a huge and incredibly important distinction between the two.
If someone halfway across the world dies of starvation, my choosing not ro give money to the charity that could save them is not the sole reason they are dead. I have not killed them. My lack of action hasn’t helped, but I personally have not ripped them up or injected them with toxins and murdered them in their sleep.
That is what abortion is.
Abortion is not the simply refusing to help a stranger one does not know and has not seen, whose health is in no way directly reliant on your help an aid, that may or may not die or become ill because of actions you refuse to carry out.
Abortion is the active killing and removal of a foetus that results in the guaranteed and instantaneous death of your child who YOU created and put there and who is entirely and 100% your responsibility and who you have a duty of care to.
Now don’t you dare tell me that they’re the same because the sre different in almost every conceivable way.
Refusal to donate: passive/indirect/stranger/not the sole cause of death/potential death only/potential salvation with donation only.
Abortion: active/direct/purposeful/immediate/your child/sole cause of death/100% garuantee.
On a side note, donating blood is a super amazing thing to do and I would encourage anyone to do it as it’s very rewarding. And I will be on the organ donor register.
So let me get this straight. Abortion is wrong because the pregnant person is the only one that can carry it to term? But not donating blood isn’t wrong because you’re not the only one that can donate blood? So if it were possible to transplant fetuses then abortion would be 100% okay because it’s no longer only the pregnant person that could prevent the fetus from dying? How does that make sense?
Abortion is the active killing and removal of a foetus that results in the guaranteed and instantaneous death of your child. If it were possible to transplant pregnancies then it wouldn’t be an abortion because the baby would be able to survive elsewhere. You’re just deliberately misinterpreting the point.
The number of people capable of helping can determine whether or not someone should be helped?
No. The number of people capable of helping determines whether or not one should help. If a million people can save 1 person, then if I’m in that million, I don’t need to help for the child to be helped. Someone else can. It’s important that the child is helped, but it’s not important that I, gabbie from OSPL, am the one to do it. (although i would)
If you see someone in trouble it’s only your responsibility to save them if there isn’t one other person around?
Yes. If someone else is around then there is joint responsibility/ a 50% chance you’re going to be the one who needs to be responsible. If you’re the only one there, YOU have to help.
Honestly, what does the number of people capable of helping have to do with anything?
Just said it twice now.
And how does distance matter as long as you are capable of helping in some way? Does a dying person two miles away more deserving of your help than one that is two hundred? Is someone five feet away from you more worthy of help than someone ten feet away?
It’s more to do with relationships than distance. Human beings, all mammals (most mammals?) have a responsibility for their children. A duty of care. Human beings don’t have a responsibility or the obligation to help absolutely everyone else in the world, but it’s basic humanity to care for your offspring. That’s not really asking much. Charity starts at home - didn’t your mother ever say that? So yeah. Not so much a geographic relationship.
And what is the difference between actively denying someone help and passively denying them help? Why is one okay but not the other? Is it okay to deny someone access to your house but not okay to actively remove them from your house?
All the difference in the world. Abortion is not “actively denying someone help” it is active murder. Don’t talk about houses like that’s the same. Preventing a human being from entering your body for use and saying “no i don’t want to give you my organs and help you” is not the same as dissolving or chopping or removing and killing a human being that is inside you already. If 2 men and a woman are on the street and the woman shoots a gun at one of the men, and the other man does nothing - has he killed the man? Is his responsibility for the death of that man equal to the woman? No. Is he still in the wrong, arguably yes, but he isn’t a murderer and that’s the difference.
Not giving blood is not good. You should give blood, it’s the right thing to do. But not giving blood is not the same as draining the blood from a human being and killing them. That’s worse because that is active murder.
I’m sorry, but not one of these points you brought up is convincing in the least, that’s even ignoring the fact that people can actually suffer from not receiving blood donations and not from being aborted as a non-sentient fetus.
You’re either obligated to help or not. Distance, number of other people that can do it, nor directness have anything to do with it.
My responses are in the bolded paragraphs.
Sorry this took so long, I just really couldn’t be bothered before; this is the most long winded response with about 3 billion questions on it and I honestly just thought “nah screw that” before even reading it.
But just so you don’t think you’ve won, I have responded. - Gabbie
Pro-choicers always seem so concerned with the insignificant details (such as saying “does a person two miles away deserve more help than a person two hundred miles away?” which is stupid because with the way blood donation works, if I give it in North Carolina, it usually stays in North Carolina (or South Carolina depending on the area). The point is if someone dies from blood loss in California, it means you aren’t at fault because you as a person living in Maine didn’t donate blood when there was a blood drive).
Usually when the pro-choicers are concerned with such minor details, it means they have no actual valid response to the argument before them.
Being pro-life doesn’t mean you have to give away blood and organs. Some people have religious objections to giving (and receiving) blood and organs. And that’s ok. They are not harming anyone by choosing not to do so because there are plenty of other people willing to do so. And even then, the blood and organs have to be matches.
So that is a totally ridiculous statement.
Side note, apparently when someone is in danger and you are the only person around, you have to be careful about how you try to help. Apparently, thanks to the lawsuit culture we have, if you do harm while trying to help a person, you can be sued. So if someone needs CPR, you should think twice because if you break their rib, you can sue them. Thanks lawyers!
Throw a shoe and miss Hillary Clinton and face 2 years in federal prison.
Murder innocent children with drone strikes and receive a Nobel Prize.
Sell Bitcoin and face 20 years in prison.
Lose $6 Billion of taxpayer money and front run for US Presidency
Release information found on unsecured public webpage and spend 41 months in prison after being convicted in a state where no crime was committed.
Illegally monitor every American’s phone and computer using taxpayer money and exploits then receive $52.6 Billion in funding with no criminal charges.
A quick look at the extraordinary growth of taxation since the adoption of the income tax. It’s time to wake up, everyone.
If anything registered from Tax Day, I hope it’s the fact that our tax code is a joke. The progressive tax system needs to be replaced and I rarely hear anyone bring it up in Washington.
Herman Cain brought it up, and ‘they’ had to ‘get rid’ of him.
74,000 pages of tax code? That is obscene.
Like I said yesterday, we should do away with confusing deductions and let the first $50K somebody makes me totally tax free. Tax income over that 10% and be done with it.
Tax the net income of corporations on a similar level.
If the government has to tighten their belt, even better!
Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was awesome. Couple that with eliminating loopholes and you can never argue that people aren’t paying their fair share.
In the Republican corner we have Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (Maybe we could have Pamela Geller and Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin instead)
And in the Democrat corner we have Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren
(My thought: Wow…with Clinton and Warren together in one room they made half a brain).
And these are the things that come up in conversation with my parents.
I don’t get migraines. I’ve never had one. I just don’t ever get them.
But I think Clinton and Warren together would give me a migraine.