Time magazine's cover of NJ governor raises outcry?!!

Christy is losing weight


They should show current pictures of him instead of old ones.


I don't care about the politics on this one but it helps encourage people to get their weight under control.


He cant win anyway because his ideas are too far right
 
Crashk said:
The only reason Chris Chris was 'nice to Obama' is that he needs fed money to rebuild after the hurricane. Other than that Chris Chris will probably run but will never get the nomination from the party, he will be purged by the radicals and the billions the Kochs and Adelson and foreign investors will spend in negative advertising and propaganda.
Click to expand...



I actually think he will be the guy.


unless someone crawls out of the woodwork.


The BIG money is pissed at the Kochs and their tea party clowns for trying to destroy the economy with a debt default.


Hell stupid sara short and dumb still wishes the right had destroyed the economy with a debt default.


The Koch even pulled back.

They have to do business with the BIG money who now hates the tea party.


the money aint going to flow like it used to.


They will get Christy and like it.

Just like I said about robmoney before the big money picked him for the party.


remember when the party was doing its circus car thingy with the like of Cain and bachman taking turns driving the clown car and alternatively running around it?


I was telling the tea tards they would GET ROBMONEY and that they would LIKE IT.

they hated him right up until he won the nomination.

then he was the second coming


they will do whatever their told by their masters
 
super duper is a sociopath.

I have known him for a decade.

He does not value human life that is not his own
 
christiefan915 said:
Are you anti-war also? How about anti-capital punishment?
Click to expand...

For capital punishment: I support it when it is 100% clear... for the Bundys/Dahmers/Mansons/McVeighs of the world... absolutely. There is a difference between an innocent life and a guilty one. I also believe it is the more humane thing to do... just as we would a dog with rabbis.. you put the bastard down. That said, I think all cases (especially those where the convicted is a minority) that were done prior to the mid 1990's should be reverted to life without parole. Too much bullshit back in the day.

For War: yes, we should try our best to prevent the loss of innocent life in the wars, but to be anti-war 100% is silly. I believe if there is a wholesale slaughter going on (think Rwanda, the Sudan, The Congo etc...) it is our duty to go in and prevent said slaughter from occurring. If we are attacked, such as on 9/11, then we should pursue those that did it and those that harbor them. Afghanistan was such a time. I know you will now shift to Iraq... so once again I will reiterate... yes, I think that war there was inevitable. No, I do not agree with the timing of when Bush went in and definitely think they lacked a vision under Rumsfeld and thus a cluster fuck ensued. I think the surge strategy was the right idea. Coupled with good timing, it turned out to be the correct way to secure our exit.
 
christiefan915 said:
A lot of them play the "innocent life" card, as if no innocent people are ever killed in war or put to death by the state.
Click to expand...

Who has ever stated that innocent lives are not lost in war? Or put to death by the state? Oh yeah, no one.

Are you suggesting that no one should ever warrant a death penalty because of this? That no war is justified?

Was WWII justifiable? Did innocent people lose their lives in that war?
 
Superfreak said:
For capital punishment: I support it when it is 100% clear... for the Bundys/Dahmers/Mansons/McVeighs of the world... absolutely. There is a difference between an innocent life and a guilty one. I also believe it is the more humane thing to do... just as we would a dog with rabbis.. you put the bastard down. That said, I think all cases (especially those where the convicted is a minority) that were done prior to the mid 1990's should be reverted to life without parole. Too much bullshit back in the day.
Click to expand...

"Innocent" life is a religious designation from anything I've ever read.

And, at least according to the Catholics, you are no longer innocent the second that you enter the world...and must spend the rest of your life getting back into Grace.


So there's really no 'innocent' life unless you want all fetuses to remain in the womb and continue to worship them there.
 
Superfreak said:
For War: yes, we should try our best to prevent the loss of innocent life in the wars, but to be anti-war 100% is silly. I believe if there is a wholesale slaughter going on (think Rwanda, the Sudan, The Congo etc...) it is our duty to go in and prevent said slaughter from occurring. If we are attacked, such as on 9/11, then we should pursue those that did it and those that harbor them. Afghanistan was such a time. I know you will now shift to Iraq... so once again I will reiterate... yes, I think that war there was inevitable. No, I do not agree with the timing of when Bush went in and definitely think they lacked a vision under Rumsfeld and thus a cluster fuck ensued. I think the surge strategy was the right idea. Coupled with good timing, it turned out to be the correct way to secure our exit.
Click to expand...

There are indeed people that are 100% against war, people that will not even take a life when their own is in jeopardy. They are 'silly'?

In that case, then 'silly' is also people that personify and invest emotion in the fetuses that complete strangers carry, fetuses that naturally might not even be born.
 
Lorca said:
"Innocent" life is a religious designation from anything I've ever read.

And, at least according to the Catholics, you are no longer innocent the second that you enter the world...and must spend the rest of your life getting back into Grace.

So there's really no 'innocent' life unless you want all fetuses to remain in the womb and continue to worship them
Click to expand...

1) I am agnostic, I could really not care less about what religions think in terms of what is or is not innocent. Catholics also state that telling a priest your sins can absolve you of them... so keep that in mind when putting credibility to their teachings. They also tend to support hiding pedophiles within the priesthood.

2) When I say innocent, I mean according to our laws. They have broken none.

3) Your comment about 'worshiping' the unborn, just goes to further demonstrate your own animosity towards the unborn. I do not worship them any more than I do a toddler or a teen or a young adult or an old person. But all of them are unique human lives and deserve to have their lives protected. No matter how much you wish to dehumanize the unborn child, it will always be a human... always. Think on that.
 
tinfoil said:
When was the last time Hillary saw her own clitoris around that belly of hers? If a person can't be trusted to take care of their own body, why would you trust them to take care as head of the government?
Click to expand...

Imagine the poutrage if TF had actually said that.
 
Lorca said:
There are indeed people that are 100% against war, people that will not even take a life when their own is in jeopardy. They are 'silly'?

In that case, then 'silly' is also people that personify and invest emotion in the fetuses that complete strangers carry, fetuses that naturally might not even be born.
Click to expand...

If those people would not put their life on the line to protect those around them that they love... then yes... they are indeed silly.

Ahh... see, you again feebly try to dehumanize the unborn child. Genetics dictates that the unborn child is a unique human life. You may think there is a magic 'baby fairy' that comes along and birth and turns them into humans, but here in the real world, we know the truth of the matter. You wish to dehumanize them so that you may justify killing them. Hitler did something similar with the Jews.
 
that magic thing is called a womb.

its part of a humans body and they own it and not you.

they own all the flesh inside their body YOU don't own their flesh
 
Superfreak said:
For capital punishment: I support it when it is 100% clear... for the Bundys/Dahmers/Mansons/McVeighs of the world... absolutely. There is a difference between an innocent life and a guilty one. I also believe it is the more humane thing to do... just as we would a dog with rabbis.. you put the bastard down. That said, I think all cases (especially those where the convicted is a minority) that were done prior to the mid 1990's should be reverted to life without parole. Too much bullshit back in the day.

For War: yes, we should try our best to prevent the loss of innocent life in the wars, but to be anti-war 100% is silly. I believe if there is a wholesale slaughter going on (think Rwanda, the Sudan, The Congo etc...) it is our duty to go in and prevent said slaughter from occurring. If we are attacked, such as on 9/11, then we should pursue those that did it and those that harbor them. Afghanistan was such a time. I know you will now shift to Iraq... so once again I will reiterate... yes, I think that war there was inevitable. No, I do not agree with the timing of when Bush went in and definitely think they lacked a vision under Rumsfeld and thus a cluster fuck ensued. I think the surge strategy was the right idea. Coupled with good timing, it turned out to be the correct way to secure our exit.
Click to expand...

And I'm talking about the larger picture, not cherry-picking.

Pro-LIFE suggests ALL life, not just the life that one deems worthy and another doesn't.

Pro-choice suggests that individuals are responsible for their own decisions whether I agree with them or not. It means if a 15-year old pregnant teen decides to keep and raise her baby and it means living off the government, I support her decision even if I personally think it's stupid.
 
Superfreak said:
1) I am agnostic, I could really not care less about what religions think in terms of what is or is not innocent. Catholics also state that telling a priest your sins can absolve you of them... so keep that in mind when putting credibility to their teachings. They also tend to support hiding pedophiles within the priesthood.

2) When I say innocent, I mean according to our laws. They have broken none.

3) Your comment about 'worshiping' the unborn, just goes to further demonstrate your own animosity towards the unborn. I do not worship them any more than I do a toddler or a teen or a young adult or an old person. But all of them are unique human lives and deserve to have their lives protected. No matter how much you wish to dehumanize the unborn child, it will always be a human... always. Think on that.
Click to expand...

I think your opinion in 3 is fine. That's all yours, and is your right. Of course I hold no animosity towards babies but also do not care about stranger's fetuses (which is quite unnatural, btw).

Regarding 2, applying your definition, they are innocent because they have no free will to act, period. So that's kind of 'silly,' isnt it? So you are judging them in the womb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top