Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    So we should tier corporations so that the lower half of them pay zero taxes?
    Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
    "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
    2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

    Comment


    • #62
      The lower half of them fail and cease to exist...
      JM
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Guynemer View Post
        This is actually false.
        I concur with my colleague.
        "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

        Comment


        • #64
          Idiot. What do you called pubic hair, mental trauma, strangulation, hickeys, semen, bruises, torn vaginas? It's not lupus that's for god damn sure. It's RAPE.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Felch View Post
            Take this man to the infinite labyrinth of eternal ice.
            Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

            When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
              Idiot. What do you called pubic hair, mental trauma, strangulation, hickeys, semen, bruises, torn vaginas? It's not lupus that's for god damn sure. It's RAPE.
              Rough concensual sex.
              Graffiti in a public toilet
              Do not require skill or wit
              Among the **** we all are poets
              Among the poets we are ****.

              Comment


              • #67
                or, conciliatory sex

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                  The law concerning the Citizens United decision was used to prevent the promotion of a film which was critical of a sitting senator (Hillary Clinton). How's that for insanity?
                  I genuinely don't get why people here think Citizens United was a good thing. Is it just because it'll lead to more money being spent on Republican campaigning than Democrat? Is it really worth selling your souls for a few more attack ads?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Essentially, yes. They're just being partisan without regard to the actual damage large scale bribery and corruption does to a democracy.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Citizens United also prevented large scale damage to the democracy by prohibiting Congress from suppressing political speech in media --- including the blogs, websites, newspapers, and magazines that you jerk off to --- but let's not get bogged down in logic or reality and just scream partisanship and corruption. You are so stupid it is hard to imagine.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                        I genuinely don't get why people here think Citizens United was a good thing. Is it just because it'll lead to more money being spent on Republican campaigning than Democrat? Is it really worth selling your souls for a few more attack ads?
                        It's not selling our souls. It's about limiting the role of government. Government should protect people's rights, it shouldn't prevent people from living freely.
                        John Brown did nothing wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by kentonio View Post
                          I genuinely don't get why people here think Citizens United was a good thing. Is it just because it'll lead to more money being spent on Republican campaigning than Democrat? Is it really worth selling your souls for a few more attack ads?
                          Some of us are rather big fans of the First Amendment.
                          Captain of Team Apolyton - ISDG 2012

                          When I was younger I thought curfews were silly, but now as the daughter of a young woman, I appreciate them. - Rah

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            It's the youngest one

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                              Citizens United also prevented large scale damage to the democracy by prohibiting Congress from suppressing political speech in media --- including the blogs, websites, newspapers, and magazines that you jerk off to --- but let's not get bogged down in logic or reality and just scream partisanship and corruption. You are so stupid it is hard to imagine.
                              Our democracy wouldn't have suffered large scale damage from shadowy millionaires not being able to run attack ads against candidates they oppose during election campaigns.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Do you think millionaires should be able to talk at all? And, again, any reading that the decision only affected millionaire's rights is laughably stupid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X