House votes to bar all federal funding for Planned Parenthood - Polidicks

[QUOTE=joes33431;28194264]Agreed. That is, so long as it isn't just some richfag who's too lazy to wear a condom and decides its funny to get an abortion every other week instead of taking a morning-after pill. i dont know it might have happened[/QUOTE] Abortion is an extremely invasive procedure so if someone is willing to undergo it often then hey, that chick's got bigger balls than I do

[QUOTE=joes33431;28194264]Agreed. That is, so long as it isn't just some richfag who's too lazy to wear a condom and decides its funny to get an abortion every other week instead of taking a morning-after pill. i dont know it might have happened I believe the problem with most opposers of abortion, is that they lack the empathy to NOT make a generalization about all people who have these operations done. In fact, most people on this forum alone make plenty of generalizations. For example: -The majority of republican politicians make stupid decisions "All republicans must be stupid." -Retarded bible-humpers like those of the WBC hate abortion and gay rights "All Christians must hate abortions and homosexuals." [i]You know you do it, no matter how much you may boxstorm me.[/i][/QUOTE] First of all, if a person calls themselves a republican, they're [b]supporting idiotic political decisions, supporting idiotic politicians. Etc, so they clearly aren't the brightest bulb if they're supporting stupid shit out of "party politics"[/b] Did you forget what democracy means? It's not like these politicians exist independently, they're supported by people who probably don't have a god damn clue what's actually being done.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28194539]Abortion is an extremely invasive procedure so if someone is willing to undergo it often then hey, that chick's got bigger balls than I do[/QUOTE] True but I'd rather have an abortion in that case than live with an invasive organism for the rest of my life.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28194597]First of all, if a person calls themselves a republican, they're [b]supporting idiotic political decisions, supporting idiotic politicians. Etc, so they clearly aren't the brightest bulb if they're supporting stupid shit out of "party politics"[/b] Did you forget what democracy means? It's not like these politicians exist independently, they're supported by people who probably don't have a god damn clue what's actually being done.[/QUOTE] I never said I supported them, rather that you make a generalization about republicans. Did you forget that plenty of good presidents before the Regan administration were Republican? Its not the republicans that are the enemy, [i]its the conservatives[/i]. The Republican party is simply where they mostly reside. May I also remind you, that some Democrats are just the same as Republicans. You know what they call those? [i]Conservative Democrats[/i]. Jesus Christ people, a political party is a title, a group. The Republicans could believe in the flying spaghetti monster if they wanted, but they don't. The matter of fact is, if you simply changed the Democratic Party's name to the Republican Party and vice versa, you'd be voting Republican. Its not the name, its the ideology. Fuck, its like saying that every Christian is a Catholic, or saying that every Muslim is a Shiite. THEY HAPPEN TO BE TWO CATEGORIES OF CLASSIFICATION, THANK YOU KIND SIR. And the only reason that the American people usually accept this garbage is because they're too lazy to think on their own. You can blame that on our culture, which dictates that you must be someone else to be important. People are usually accepting of our ignorant culture, because of our failing public education system.

meanwhile at darpa [media]http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/64297e48-283b-4ef5-b5ef-b1bf15ed1389.Full_.jpg?iact=hc&vpx=447&vpy=226&dur=122&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=170&ty=90&ei=2BpjTbWDK9TogAff9si4AQ&oei=2BpjTbWDK9TogAff9si4AQ&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=183&start=0&ndsp=30&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0[/media]

Shit's just getting worse and dumber, I weep for the future.

wait a second so dudes are here being all objectivist and what not do people not understand that objectivism also means you are supposed to entirely reject religion and the spiritual

Disband the fucking republican party.

and that all of these so called "objectivists" in the tea party are not good enough at it to do that

[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28201522]wait a second so dudes are here being all objectivist and what not do people not understand that objectivism also means you are supposed to entirely reject religion and the spiritual[/QUOTE] Objectivism and objectional view points are different. One is Randian philosophy, one is simply believing there is no other view point, or that subjectivity doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28201574]Objectivism and objectional view points are different. One is Randian philosophy, one is simply believing there is no other view point, or that subjectivity doesn't exist.[/QUOTE] they are claiming to be randian, though, as far as I can tell

[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28201598]they are claiming to be randian, though, as far as I can tell[/QUOTE] I may be forgetting the context of whatever you're replying too Either way, the definition stands. And your original post would be correct in that case.

[QUOTE=Treybuchet;28201566]and that all of these so called "objectivists" in the tea party are not good enough at it to do that[/QUOTE] Well they purport this idea that they want objectivism and then they cover it with a veil of what they call religious libertarianism which is basically fascism because they think they are the only ones who deserve rights.

objectivists are quite an odd bunch, i don't think they know quite what to believe seeing as ayn rand wanted to contradict herself a lot really a lot

[QUOTE=thisispain;28204576]objectivists are quite an odd bunch, i don't think they know quite what to believe seeing as ayn rand wanted to contradict herself a lot really a lot[/QUOTE] I read Atlas Shrugged (for my extended essay which is just a really really long research paper) and she had some valid points but they seemed mostly valid because of the way they were explained. Look into a bit deeper and you realise how fucked up it really is. Funnily enough Ayn Rand had no problems with homosexuality and was against religion completely.

no she was pretty down on homosexuality. She didn't want to legislate against it but she was unapologetic about her personal disgust for it