Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

humtake

Subscribe to humtake's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

I get the intent but it was done in a rather stupid way. None of the things she put in for comedic/reaction effect impact another living being. I am pro-abortion and I think women should be able to get them at any time. However, I can easily see from an objective nature that those against abortion are only against it because they believe they are protecting another life. To put it in a way that people should be able to understand, the US is a nation of protecting those who can't protect themselves (to what degree we actually practice that is a matter of opinion, of course). I want to be able to punch someone in the face if they piss me off but I can't do that. So, logically and relatedly, they are infringing what I am allowed to do with my body. You can't argue that it's there to protect people from being punched all the time without understanding that abortion laws are there to protect people from being killed.

Whether or not you agree that an unborn baby is a person is irrelevant to the debate, yet people still keep focusing only on the selfish aspect. What the people who use the "It's my body" rhetoric don't understand is that they are fighting the wrong battle, which ensures the debate will never die. The actual debate is about protecting people who can't protect themselves.

"Not a strawman. What about my statement is inaccurate about the Republican position? They want to increase the scope of government so that it is involved in a woman's healthcare decisions related to pregnancy. In what way do you believe that statement is mis-stating the position (usually by making it more extreme)?"

The problem with your statement is you are saying this is something new. The government has been involved with women's healthcare decisions for a very long time. It's not "increasing the scope". The scope is already there. It's been there. Republicans are trying to protect those who can't protect themselves. Whether you agree they are actually protecting a person is the question, not whether or not the government should be able to tell us what we can/can't do with our bodies. I've already shown how they do that all the time for the greater good.

It's hilarious listening to Liberals about gun control. On one hand, they admonish and demonize people who go off on Muslims after one Muslim does something bad. Then on the very same day they can admonish and demonize one person for doing something wrong with a gun. Yesterday we had the article about the Right's "soaring hypocrisy"...well, now you see what I mean by they are just evolving to match suit.

"""Your America" is a bastardization of the Second Amendment that is party to thousands of murders every year, while denying that guns play any part in them. Slepp well tonight. So easy for you to be glib as long as it wasn't someone you know, eh? Pray it isn't one of your relatives tomorrow."

Way to go with your ad-lib. That's a great template. By the way, I have yet to hear anyone say that guns don't play a part in murders. What I hear all the time is that the right to bear arms should not be infringed. JUST LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. So, let's use your template and apply it to a Liberal hot button issue..."Your America" is a bastardization of the First Amendment that is party to thousands of fake, unresearched, rushed, etc. articles that cause misinformation to govern. Slepp well tonight. So easy for you to be glib as long as it doesn't affect someone you know, eh? Pray it isn't one of your relatives tomorrow (who could get put in jail because someone practiced their free speech rights).

Also, this is a --- for tat thing. For example, Liberals refuse to admit that illegal immigrants cause crime, so for every crime they do cause, a Liberal should be held responsible. See how that works? There are problems everywhere but being a hypocrite only worsens the problem. Hence...21st century America.

There will always be a debt or deficit that increases annually in our country until 2 things happen...taxes go up across the board (a good increase but not like we saw in the 60s and 70s) and we figure out a better way to identify spending problems. Until then, get used to this just like the last 2 decades. To help strengthen that point, I'll take a Liberal's comment from above and apply it here:

"Our entire national debt was less than $500 billion when Reagan took the reins. He gave us our first trillion dollar national debt, and Republicans have worked hard to make that figure an annual deficit ever since. Take Dick "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter" Cheney's word for it."

When Reagan took office, taxes were still really high but not nearly as high as they were in the 2 decades before him. Once they started going down, at least one debt or deficit increased year over year. The Reps made the biggest impact in the 90s but Clinton made a much bigger impact when he traded one debt for another, which caused interest to accrue at a much higher rate than if he had left it alone. That's basically what W, Obama and Trump are being forced to try to counteract. Raising taxes on one group of people (e.g. the rich), helped a tiny bit under Obama, but there can't be a real solution until taxes go up for everyone like they were pre-80s. You can disagree all you want but disagreeing doesn't change the facts.

Federal - 1980 Single Tax Brackets
Tax Bracket Tax Rate
$0.00+ 0%
$2,300.00+ 14%
$3,400.00+ 16%
$4,400.00+ 18%
$6,500.00+ 19%
$8,500.00+ 21%
$10,800.00+ 24%
$12,900.00+ 26%
$15,000.00+ 30%
$18,200.00+ 34%
$23,500.00+ 39%
$28,800.00+ 44%
$34,100.00+ 49%
$41,500.00+ 55%
$55,300.00+ 63%
$81,800.00+ 68%
$108,300.00+ 70%

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable