red viking

The moral issue is control over the body. You don't have to kill the fetus to remove it. It is NOT the woman's problem if the hospital can't keep the fetus alive. And YES, this should extend to girls under the age of 18 also.

The woman should ALWAYS have the right to remove the fetus. That's my crystal clear position. Now if the hospital can potentially keep the fetus alive then it should be kept alive. I also feel strongly about that. Now, what happens if the fetus is, say 15 weeks old so it can'be kept alive? I don't have a strong opinion. Probably better to just abort it rarther than let it have a slower death.

abortion is a God-given right, protected by God and the Constitution. At least to have the baby removed from the body. There is no debate here. I'd say the same thing about being able to consume a plant that grows naturally on God's earth. Country is going off the deep end to the right as we continue to lose individual freedoms and as wealth disparities continue to grow also.

Yah; I plotted the whole thing with him (my buddy) and was giving him instructions on Saturday.

Yah thanks. Bigbrog made the request about me so I turned the table on another person.

Well, he is threatening to take drastic actions to significantly increase his power. Potentially allow him to control the interest rates and make every federal worker a lapdog for him.

Let's get rid of the liberal posters on here and just create another echo chamber for Republican propaganda. Just like Fox News.

These people are completely nuts. The right-wing propaganda and divisiveness have created a nationwide mob of whackos and they'll shoot Democrats, Republicans, and everything in between. There's no limit to where these people will go and I think we've just seen the beginning. Even though he was shot by a right-winger, there WILL DEFINITELY be retaliation and shooting of minorities and Democrats.

The right-wing whacko conspiracy theories are never-ending. It's a true vortex of stupidity.

I watched 10 minutes of the RNC yesterday before I had to go to the bathroom and vomit. I heard people talking about how strong he is and one delegate even called him "Braveheart." First of all, the guy got grazed in the ear and I'm sure he was pumped full of adrenaline. Being able to shake your fist after getting grazed in the ear doesn't make you a tough guy. The guy also cowered from combat every chance he got and has hidden behind lawyers his entire life. He's a complete wuss bag.

This is the epitome of a conflict of interest. What we have here is a corrupt, right-wing judge that was appointed by Trump and is now making a ruling on his criminal activities. It doesn't get any worse than that. It also had nothing to do with the merits of the case, so this will either be appealed successfully or re-filed. Trump is a criminal and will eventually go down.

If it can legally be appealed, and is, and you have an objective judge(s), then whatever you want.

You can't make this stuff up. His case is "thrown out" by a judge that he appointed. It will certainly get appealed & reversed by any even somewhat neutral/objective judges.

Going from 35 to 40% top marginal tax rate is a COMPLETELY different situation than raising a tax rate that is already 95%. You may want to take a class in optimization. There's a curve (upside down "U") that provides the most tax revenue and it's always somewhere much higher than 0% but much lower than 100%. It's actually very complicated because we have different marginal tax rates, there are other taxes, and other factors at play, but to compare raising a tax rate that is already at 35% to one that is already at 95% shows a gross ignorance of the optimization concept.

A 99% is a gross extrapolation and therefore a completely different situation. Total strawman. 100%.

FDR raised taxes AND revenue. Your facts are so wrong it isn't even funny.

99% is WAY too high so that's a nice straw man argument. We would easily raise revenue by raising taxes on the rich.

The poor need to do more also, but for the most part, they are doing all they can. Most of these people (vast majority) are doing what they can and don't actually want to be poor. A lot of people are handicapped, addicted, or have other problems, and a lot have just had bad luck.The childaren also have zero control over their situations

You've still provided absolutely zero information. Just a bunch of questions and more so accusations. You need to educate yourself.

What's the solution then? Have them pull themselves up by their boot straps? LOL.

educate yourself Rasta. If you want an answer to a question, you need to look it up yourself. I can teach you how to fish but I'm not giving you the actual fish.

The actual data just shows more of the same. I don't think you understand that i've already done this research and don't have time to re-do it for your benefit. The only way you'll actually get educated is to look it up yourself and make a good-faith effort.

They should save as much money as they can for their own self interest but need to pay their fair share in taxes. The net result would be a little less money for their investments. So many may be able to save $900 million instead of $1 billion. I think they'll still be OK. The proof is the millions of people scraping to get by and incredibly high child poverty rate in this country, while fat cats acquire more wealth than they can shake a stick at.

https://inequality.org/great-divide/true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy/ Were you talking about this? All the money that they "donate" that actually provides political favors in return that are tenfold?

You asked me to take 30m to research a particular question that you seem to be seeking hard data for. If you want the hard data, go ahead and find it yourself. The problem is that there are a lot of ways to look at that data, since you weren't very specific. Therefore, this could end up being a huge rabbit hole and I don't have time for that. I do know for a FACT that the rich do NOT provide enough in taxes or charitable donations to help the poor and it isn't even remotely close to what they stash away or "invest." I can guarantee that whatever you find won't refute that. I've also seen enough data myself that proves that. Maybe YOU are the one that needs to be educated. Go look up what you asked about and get back to me.