Search results

"Oh, don't worry about the thief. They'll spend most of the money in the local area so it'll get back to you". Do you actually think about what you are posting? Meanwhile, I have the same opinion here that I've had in other places: stop killing kids for cash. Not a hard concept to get behind...

War always kills the innocent. The mil industrial complex loves wars cause they get sweet sweet cash to manufacture weapons that will end up being used to kill kids, and all for nothing that helps America. This new policy is just a further extension of that "kill for cash" mindset: the military...

The military has always taken tax dollars to murder babies. Now it's just slightly more honest about it.

No, again, you don't seem to know what you are talking about. It's not that the usual definition of any word changed, that's irrelevant. It's that the US and US state governments decided to try to define what marriage was, but they are limited by the constitution. And the constitution doesn't...

Yes. Unlike you, who wants to be the tyrannical government killing people, but is to cowardly to do it themselves. No, because of the laws, the government felt the need to let the cops run wild. That you can't see the link between these two would be shocking, if it wasn't you. The sex offender...

... Someone hasn't paid attention to history. The drug war massively expanded the surveillance state as cops got ever greater powers to search and raid people's houses for drugs. This includes warrentlessly using infrared cameras on houses, to swat raids for drugs, to constant use of CIs, and I...

Doesn't have to do with freedom or surveillance my ass. How do you think this law would be enforced? And yeah, you not willing to stack up shows the world for either your beliefs being hollow, or you being a coward. If you are willing to send cops to die in order to kill civilians for the...

Oh, so you are fine importing enough immigrants into America to impose basically sharia law, all to own the libs. Wow, what success. I never want to hear you complaining about immigration again at this point, or any freedoms, or complaining about the surveillance state you'd need to maintain to...

That's nice. It's still not legal reasoning. The government (both state and federal) eventually established something called marriage, and defined it (explicitly in DOMA, and before that implicitly/explicitly depending on when in history and what state). Now it doesn't matter how one would like...

What you've done isn't even legal reasoning. The legal reason is the government is recognizing a series of benefits that exist for opposite sex couples that don't exist for same sex couples. This discriminates based on sex, as the legality of a person's marriage to a woman depends completely on...

Zero. Dobbs literally highlights how it only applies to abortion, and doesn't apply in other places. Also, Gorsuch won't go for it, and neither will Roberts.

Actually, I'd say this is on topic, in that it is specifically about Dobbs, and thus it's consequence. And the answer is maybe something if Thomas gets his way, but he likely won't. Yes, there are promises in the opinion that this doesn't extend farther, but I think we all know Alito would love...

This is, sadly, a gaping whole in the constitution that they could use given a big enough majority. SCOTUS and the other courts can just be stripped of any jurisdiction that isn't 'original' jurisdiction pretty easily. Though hilariously, after they were done, they'd end up in basically the...

No, what I would be doing isn't illegal even if what they are doing is. What they are doing is awful, but not illegal (protesting people in public places).

I'm tempted to make up twitter accounts to send them bs info.

No. There's still brain activity going on, and thus presumably some sort of thought. Like I don't require much to count as thought. Also, this summary of a study goes into how the brain thinks while unconscious...

No he has a morality, it's just not one I agree with. He's basically the worlds most extreme utilitarian. The guy is smart, and I don't have issues with his arguments, I have absolute issues with his predicates (i.e. the things he bases his argument on). If you accept his predicates, he'll show...

See, I do. We are just going to have to agree to disagree here. No, it wasn't killed. It was extracted, and they failed to save it's life. See, it isn't a killing the way I put it. It's extracting and failing to save. It's morally acceptable to kick them off. You should do it in the least...

I would say it depends entirely on whether you consented to the situation, which your question doesn't capture. So if we frame it like this: "If someone is physically dependent upon you in order to remain alive, and separating them from you would kill them, directly result in their death, and...

First, it isn't triage, it's self defense. And yes, she would have the right to abort you, just as my mom would have the right to abort me in such a case. Why? Because all rights flow from self ownership (or the NAP, but they are basically equivalent), including the fetus'. Ultimately, a baby...