By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
osamanobama on 20 January 2012
Edit Thread
Areym said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
osamanobama said:
mrstickball said:
osamanobama said:

yeah if you like the idea of all  high priority terrorists, especially Osama bin laden being still alive. and if you like the idea of a Nuclear Iran.

if we could have Ron Paul without his foreign policy, he'd be great. 

his last debate really showed how clueless he was when it came to foreign policy.

i would much prefer, a Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, colonel allen west, or Scott Walker.


You mean............Gary Johnson?

As for the others you mentioned, none of them are going to reduce the size of government like Paul or Johnson would.

Gary johnson supports the mass murdering of unborn children. So no 

both Johnson and Paul would be great as like a treasurey secretary (or what ever posistion has a big role in JUST the economy.

Gary was one if the first governors to pass a partial birth abortion ban, and also signed legislation to require parental consent, FYI.


i guess, i was getting one of his policies with Ron Puals.

well is still dont support his view on drugs, pot i can understand, not others.

anyway im 100% against any form of killing an unborn child, regardless of the term, you are murdering a child no matter what age, so stopping partial birth abortion is hardly anything to be proud of. i cant see how anybody with any shred of inteligence can be for massacring a child as its being born. (for that matter murdering a child at any age).

but Newt should still be a pretty good candidate (far from perfect) but still good, it seems he has turned away from most of his liberal tendencies, and is a strong fiscal conservative. much  better candidate than Romney.

but im sure you would agree that these men would be near perfect presidents: Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, colonel allen west, or Scott Walker


I honestly don't see the problem in being pro choice and why they get so much hate. Let the women, simply. I mean seriously, just let the woman decide. If she feels remorse for having an abortion, fine, no problem, another life into this world. If she wants to have an abortion, go for it. It's obvious you don't want the baby. Done deal. I would appreciate if you were not to agressive on just a simple issue. How could you put into question the intelligence on millions of people like that? "You don't agree with me because of so and so. It's obvious you're pretty goddamn dumb."

OT about Ron Paul: He isn't getting the coverage he deserves. He was ignored TWICE during the debate, the second time the audience had to intervene to LET HIM SPEAK....ABOUT ABORTION FOR FUCKS SAKE. He's a doctor, how the hell do you blatantly skip him like that? Video proof BTW:

Look at John 's face at the end. Fucking priceless.

OT on the debate: Newt stated well but lost some steam as the debate went on. Ron Paul made some strong points, but was still largely ignored due to media bias. Santorum took Newt and Romney to town a few times and did an overall solid performance. Romney...Oh Romney, you freaking mess. It was jobs this, america is the hope is the earth that, Obama is wrong, I am right and complete fumble about his tax returns.

i dont believe that the woman has a choice on whether or not to kill a child. i do however believe she can do what ever she wants to her own body.

the problem with abortion is, that it is not her own body, something that is scientifical proven over and over, and more convincingly as technology advances. its a Scientific fact that from the moment of conception, the baby is an individual being having its own seperate DNA. it is a life seperate from her own.

So no it is the the womans choice any more than it is her choice to kill her toddler or infant.

furthermore if someone can be charged for double murder for killing a pregnant women, then how the hell is the woman not charged with murder for killing her unborn child. You cant have it both ways. it cant be a child when it wasnt the woman chosing to kill the child, but not a child when she decides to contribute to an ongoing genocide.