For seven years, the best investment for big business was to Bribe Obama. Give him a few million and you got government goodies far in excess to your cash. That's how Facebook and Google could buy up and destroy any competition.
1. she should have kept to herself. 2. if she's so self-important (and having such a bad day), she should have privately reported it to WMATA and left it at that.
posting it on twatter? Get over yourself.
And to all those who are persecuting her? You need to get a life too. NEVER was race an issue with this situation, but they sure as hell stuck it in there as the Democrat Default Accusation. The publisher? Also an over-reaction, IMO. But...that's our social climate today.
And also why I prefer to deal with things like this face-to-face.
On abortion I have 3 questions. The pro abortion folk go into auto freak mode when I try to ask them, so I've never got any answer.
1. Term limits. Are there no age restriction on killing the kid? Obama and Cuomo voted for or promote killing the kid after being born alive in a botched abortion. So? The terrible twos? 18, the standard Age of adulthood in my day? Age 26 when they are no longer on the parent's health insurance? ( the new, older standard for adulthood ) 63? Any limits? ( none in Obama care )
2. Does only the mother have the right to kill her own kid? How about the husband? Married female spouse? Doctor? Twitter mob? Donald Trump? Sandy the taco waitress? What if the husband, or Sandy, disagree with the Mother? Who then decides?
3. I draw the line at government MANDATED abortion. Like China during it's One Child Policy, or euthanasia to reduce health care costs as the Obama care writer says? (Now denied on Ezekiel's Wiki page. May be untrue ) or, as practiced in Holland? What is the opinion on that?
Any pro-x folk card to address my three questions? I think them important to the issue.
Btw my opinion on rape cases is simple, it's a crime to force a women to have her rapist's baby, and as for custody by him? Nay.
My attitude on sentencing for rapists is pretty much drawn from the Captain Stern segment from the movie Heavy Metal.
it's a crime to force a women to have her rapist's baby
At what point is it ok to murder a human for the crimes of his/her father? If he's born and grows to be 18 should his mother still be able to murder him? 6 minutes after he's born should his mother still be able to murder him? 3 minutes before can she still murder? 1 month before? After you see the little pee-pee in the ultrasound? After there's a heartbeat? Why is it OK to murder a human just because his/her mother was raped? That's f-ed up. Momma's got trauma from the incident. It's horrible. But two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to kill someone after a rape, kill the rapist. Not the innocent human.
I understand. But mommy's boyfriend, that raped little Ansasha repeatedly from when she was 12 to 14, after beating her Mom in every drunken rage, ( 4-6 times a week ) and is now serving 5 years in prison, for dealing crack. ( but will be released in 11 months. Because he has a baby at home. ) His lawyer demands Ansasha carry the baby to full term. Since the boyfriend wanted a child, but Ansasha's Mom can't, because of the beatings and internal injuries.
The above is a composite of real life horror stories in just This year's newspapers.
Some hideous variation is taking place, as we speak, close to someone here, and of course, we don't know. Not, perhaps, as totally unfair, but close.
Does this morally justify killing the unborn kid? No. You consider that an absolute, and I understand.
Are you going to demand little Ansasha have a baby at age 14, with the risk to her health? To please the monster that has ravaged her tiny family for 2 years?
Best solution is death penalty for the rapist. Quickly and publicly. No chance for recidivism. Yeah, it sucks. But the only person deserving of a death sentence is the rapist. The child is innocent. It makes no sense to execute the child and not the criminal.
The question is that of Personhood. Chambliss said, "“The 14th Amendment gives people, a person the right to life, liberty and property. But it doesn’t say when a person becomes a person. Obviously, if somebody is walking around, we know that’s a person. In the womb, do we know if that is a person or not? Unborn babies can hear, they can feel – at what point can they hear and feel and think and feel pain.”" If the murder of a pregnant woman gets you charged with two counts, how can it be denied that it is a person in the womb? My first born became an abortion over seas. I wasn't consulted because my answer was known. I showed up at her door after the fact with an envelope filled with the price of the procedure in cash. I handed it to her and never said a word. Till this day I have never talked to the woman. She murdered my child. I owe her nothing.
I agree that the death penalty for rape is warranted. The problem is, in this day of "believe every women" "#metoo", men and women are NOT equal. The law typically errs on the side of women. I know too many innocent men who were given sentences for things they didn't do. But women said they did, so in the eyes of the courts, they did. No evidence, witnesses were impeached on the stand, and still the women were given the upper hand. So how do you make sure you're actually killing a rapist? No easy answers, sometimes.
Aesquire: I too have tried the calm rational discussion with an abortion supporting feminist., and I too get the frothing response before I can even ask enough hypotheticals to determine where on the slippery slope they are standing.
Example train of thought, (I do not have a dog in this fight, this is for hypothetical discussion only):
1. If what I argue is a viable human, is truly just a clustered collection of cells, (OK for sake of discussion lets put aside my view and accept that argument.) next question:
2. If a person can sell blood, plasma, locks of hair, semen, and even unfertilized eggs, given the demand in stem cell research, which despite moral objections from many, has shown promise in some fields of medicine, what would their position be on the sale of aborted "cell clusters"?
3. Should only the greedy doctor get the money, or should he/she only get a finders fee, and the majority of the funds go to our traumatized ex-mother?
4. If acceptable as a means of salvaging some measure of something positive from this setback in the woman's life, could a woman then continue to monetize this product of future pregnancies just like blood plasma, semen and locks of hair? ( Heck, market prices might even make it a substantial "living".
(If she can stand the irony of saying that.)
5. Since unlike the aforementioned human commodities, it takes a partner to create this new commercial good, does he get a cut of the proceeds too? (Irrelevant to this line of thought, but likely to come up someday in a civil case.)
(Here we go)
6. This person has likely now walked down the slippery slope all the way to sale of humans as commodities to be bought and sold, and the women producing them to be little more than commodity producing livestock. Arguably its different because in this case the cow gets paid, but is subject to procedures far more dangerous and invasive than milking.
(Compensating the ex-mother seems the right thing to do now, doesn't it?)
7. How does the above position differ from the most dehumanizing views of say, the Chancellor of Germany from 1933- 1944, and his trusted medical "expert" Dr. Josef Mengele. They didn't see any problem with the commercializing of durable goods from gold fillings, craft/hobby materials from skin and bones,(the Holocaust museum has a lampshade of human skin, among other equally horrible things), and using the remainder of their six million "commodities" for heating fuel.
To my mind it was a relatively short walk from women's unfettered reproductive rights to eugenics, (I do tend to support women's rights as a basic civil right, but like all rights, there are almost always responsibilities, and restrictions on the exercise, subject to prosecution for overstepping that reasonable free exercise.)
I have a different take than the "economic" view of collectivism, consciousness, and degrees of State Controls on Property.
I've long since learned, and reject, the language of Marx. It's not a scientific definition, it's a weapon against truth. Rules For Radicals bluntly defines it by example and purpose, How to lie to take power.
I define the Revolution as religious war. Between the Enlightenment individual freedom side of Liberal Western Thought, as seen in the Federalist Papers, VS. the State Worship Intolerance of the fundamentally dishonest Left. Freedom vs. Slavery. Apollo vs. Bread line. The individual vs.group identity. Motorcycle vs. The Green Leap Forward.
That the most murderous lying Hate mongers in human history have a thousand brand names, and deny their crimes against humanity, is Evil Marketing, with no relation to content. Also pretty much the Biblical definition of Evil.
So, yeah. Socialists are socialists are collectivist are greenies are communists are fascists are whatever brand name. LIes, murder, coups, genocide and starvation are the common course.
More importantly, on the moral obligation to Citizens,it you make a service "free" aka tax paid, then the government, Congress, has inevitability had to control prices, by limiting the pay of the service provider. And ultimately, forcing them to work without choice, when Congress forbids private sector services.
Aka Slavery. Not there yet on health care, but the British model comes close, and getting worse.
How do you think a Harvard Professor of law or gay cooking anthropology would react to being told Congress has set his salary at $47k a year?
By short circuiting the Electoral college, the Ds think they can tip the scales to eternal power.
They may be right. Unless there is an outbreak of rejecting the lies of socialism, the decades of propaganda in schools and the near total media bias will drag us in the direction of Mexico. A series of increasingly corrupt and useless Presidents and legislators that hang onto power like leaches until the economy is so poor they get voted out for a new prez eager to get bribed and a party shift that .... Then steals until the next bad years.
Basically the same people that shift offices every few election cycles, so they take turns getting the office with the good view. (& bribery income )