Explicitly false. Once you're dead, at the moment you finally get conclusive proof one way or another, it's already too late. So, if you're someone who wants to see the evidence before accepting something as true, then you're excluded by design.
You're kidding, right? The rules are very much in use on the other side of the fence:
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Hence the comparisons of Obama to Putin (I'm guessing you'll find the shirtless Putin vs bike helmeted Obama in the pictures thread), discussion of Obama's "mom...
It's absolutely true that socialism relies on force, whereas in capitalism it's optional. But capitalism without force is merely an ideal implementation, not a realistic one. Just because money now buys political influence instead of thugs doesn't mean force isn't still applied, it just means...
Yanking the band-aid off could work, but it would hurt, on a level we haven't seen in this country in almost a century. And we can't count on another world war this time.
Mmhmm. Let me know how many elections you win with the "right off the top, 10% of you aren't going to get to vote anymore" platform. Or if you have an implementable solution to the corporate subsidy problem, instead of just pointing out the obvious.
Consider someone who works as many hours as they can get, but is still below the poverty line. So because the profits from their labor go into someone else's pockets instead of their own, those people don't deserve a vote?
To you, it's not necessary, but what about to someone who makes more than you? If you're okay with disenfranchising those who don't contribute as much as you do, then what happens when someone else decides to do the same to you? Why should you have the same rights as the 1%?
Land isn't wealth? News to me.
But, I'll rephrase: how much of a net financial contribution is required before a citizen deserves their vote? And more importantly, what makes your answer right in the eyes of someone else who makes a larger net financial contribution than you? If you insist...
What about someone who's working two jobs, and can't schedule time away from both to wait for the bus, wait at the BMV, etc.? Are they unworthy of the right to vote?
Not gonna happen, because as we've already established, one party thinks it'll give the other party an edge, and preventing that is more important than looking out for the voters. (And if the positions were reversed, I'm not convinced that their opponents wouldn't say the exact same thing.)...
We should be looking at countries that have the lowest rates of unintended pregnancy, figuring out how they do things, identifying those that might work here, implementing them at a local level, measuring the results, scaling up to the regional level, continuing to measure, and continuing to...
Given that the focus is entirely on abortion instead of preventing unplanned pregnancy in the first place, it's reasonable to conclude that this is about posturing, not measurable results.
Nonsense. There's plenty of room politically for both parties to set aside the issue of legalizing abortion and asking:
what's the starting point: how many preventable abortions are there per year?
what measures could be undertaken to reduce that number?
what would be required to...