I just replied to a couple of her posts and realized she is the most frustrating member here to deal with since she is so utterly confused about politics and science, yet acts as arrogant as if she is knowledgeable in both. Not a good combination. She also seems unable to comprehend facts if they differ from her ideas. Why is she so impossible? Is she clinically retarded, do you think? A short bus rider? Or is her ignorance an act? If so it is a good one!
Trump is sayng what I have said many times. He says, don't drink & never become addicted.
Donald Trump's brother died from alcoholism, and guess what? He does not blame the alcohol, nor the gene that might make some people more susceptible to alcoholism. Trump says it like it is. He says choose not to drink! He told all his children many times not to drink, take drugs, or smoke. Common sense!I love hearing people speak the obvious truth. This honesty was once common place in America. This Progressive political correct no fault mentality is truly responsible for creating more harm and addiction to millions of people every year.How many times do we now hear from those on the Left, that it is not your fault if you become an alcoholic, or drug addict, etc. They say it is a diseases and not your fault!TALK ABOUT PURE NO FAULT DENIAL OF THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Those on the Left are so insecure with any mention of personal responsibility and accountability, that they would sooner watch our children destroy their lives rather than speak the truth of the many benefits of moral responsibility.It most definitely is your choice of maybe becoming an alocoholic the very first time you choose to drink. No one forced you to take that first drink, and by choosing not to drink means you will NEVER become an alocoholic.... so therefore it is not a disease. You do have control over your life and addictions.Yes, maybe some people have a gene that would make them more receptive to alcoholism. Who knows? If that is true, this gene is not a disease and will never harm you if you choose not to drink. THIS IS COMMON SENSE LOST ON LIBERALS!This same political correct denial of the consequences from irresponsibility is witnessed in most areas of our culture.Look at the number of broken homes with children being raised with no fathers in the house. HELLO? This simple fact is responsible for most of our nations problems whether it be welfare roles filled with unwed mothers and their children, or kids joining gangs looking for some semblance of a family, or kids getting hooked on drugs, alcohol, cigarrettes, etc.Why is it the Left refuses to speak to moral values that would protect our children from harm? Ask yourself why they are so totally insecure, and refuse to speak to personal responsibility. They hate the thought of being blamed for anything! They want no one ever saying that they chose to do irresponsible things, and that it was THEIR FAULT.Aids was a perfect example of denial to ones personal responsibility for getting Aids. It was a disease that could have been better controlled. The Left watched as millions of people died, and sayng little about the personal choices causing it. They mostly spoke of finding a cure rather than also speaking to the personal irresponsible choices spreadng the disease.They should have been constantly telling everyone how not to get aids. They should have said you will most likely never get aids, if you don't have sex with someone you don't know is committed to you, or if you don't take illegal drugs, and if you make sure the blood you get in surgery is safe. Its that simple. If you choose to sleep around with strangers, or take illegal drugs, you are playing russian roulette.Yes, many people got aids when it was not their choice or fault, but rather they acquired it from others who were irresponsible. Those who were selling their tainted blood for money to buy drugs should have been shamed. Those who cheated on their spouse should have been shamed, but as always, the Left refused to speak to irresponsibility.The insecure Left would watch our children destroy their lives with their refusal to admit our accountability for our own choices. It's the no fault generation and the saddest thing about it? They still refuse to admit it after witnessing the results for decades.Democrats refused to simply tell Black people that the broken family is the core problem in their communities. It's not the white man!Now those on the Left will always make the same pathetic excuses to why they refuse to shame irresponsibility. They say there are people who will live irresponsibly no matter what you say to them. YES THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SELFISH IDIOTS BUT GUESS WHAT? We need more common sense in our nation and maybe Trump will have the guts to speak the simple truth.
Nearly five million people have signed a petition on change.org urging the presidential electors to choose Democrat Hillary Clinton over President-elect Donald Trump.The petition alleges that Trump has not been elected president while calling on conscientious electors at least 149 of them to ignore the way their state voted.Here you have Obama in 2014 on voting rights - “It's a fact. This recent effort to restrict the vote has not been led by both parties. It's been led by the Republican Party,” said Obama.My how the times have changed and the Democrat narrative as well. In 2014 Obama says Republicans are restricting the vote. In 2016 the Democrats are calling for the restriction of votes through the Electoral College. Democrats only care about the right to vote when it benefits their political purpose.
Why do Conservatives Want to Leave Everything to the States!
i would like to understand why conservatives seem to want to leave everything to the states .someone will say "actually, im ok with gay marriage, lets leave it to the states" .or "you know what, marijuana is ok", lets leave it to the states .but leaving things to the states seems like an odd compromise between allowing it and not allowing it.if abortion is legal anywhere, why not everywhere ?why should a woman in texas without a car have to hitchhike hundreds of miles to get an abortion ?why should a man in NW washington have to travel hundreds of miles to carry a concealed weapon ?why dont they have these rights in their own state ?i think that rights that are granted in any state should be available in every state .so then, what would the states have the power to decide ?taxes, pumping your own gas, and state birds are examples .
declaring independence in 1776, Congress had tried to unite the states under
one national government. This proved to be a difficult task. Most
members of Congress were nervous about creating a strong central
government. They feared that such a government would trample the very
rights they were fighting to preserve.Their
solution was a plan of government known as the Articles of
Confederation. The Articles created “a firm league of friendship” in which
“each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” This
“league of friendship” was a loose union in which the 13 states cooperated for
common purposes. It was run by Congress, in which each state had one vote.On
paper, the Articles of Confederation gave Congress several important
powers. It could declare war, raise an army and a navy, print money, and
set up a postal system.In
reality, however, these powers were limited by the inability of Congress to
impose taxes. Instead, Congress had to ask the states for funds to do
anything. All too often, the states ignored Congress’s “humble
requests.” The result, said Madison, was that the Articles were no more
effective at binding the states into a nation than “a rope of sand.”
this chapter, you will read about the new nation’s shaky start under the
Articles of Confederation. You will also learn how Madison and other
leaders met in 1787 to revise the Articles and ended up compromising to form “a
more perfect Union.”
Although money comes with power and power comes with money, let's assume for the fun of this debate that money and power aren't tied whatsoever.I've been asked a similar question a lot; would I rather be immortal or infinitely wealthy? I think that's kind of a stupid question. No matter how happy you are, you will eventually become bored of life, and by then it's gonna suck ass to be immortal. But would I rather be powerful or rich? That's harder to answer, at least for me.
In many countries around the world individuals are free to choose to vote or not to vote, while in other countries (Australia, a couple cantons in Switzerland, Belgium and Singapore ,
for example) it is compulsory for citizens to vote. Punishment for
non-voting can vary from a $15 fine to the possible deprivation of
government services or the freezing of one's bank account. Is this a
violation of an individual’s freedom of choice? With the citizens of
many countries fighting for their right to vote, is it right that US
voting turnout hovers around 50 – 60%of registered voters 1?
Should voting be seen as a duty or a right?Could mandatory voting improve voter participation, increase voter
awareness on political issues, and reduce the powers of special
The reason I think this war is much more interesting than the classic 1v1 is that I think these 2 houses brilliantly balance the other out. Ravenclaw's ability to form complex strategies and insanely large memory and quick recall of incantations and coutnercurses/counter-spells combined with the supreme athleticism and undisputed knowledge of herbology and many underrated studies such as charms that hufflepuff dominate will make them a powerhouse when it comes to a war that is drawn out.On the other hand, slytherins alone would probably be thwarted as they are less likely to trust each other and in a battle will be less likely to boldly bluff and make huge gambles risking their lives in order to make the enemy back off which Gryffindors are extremely well known for having little to no caution in doing. Additionally, if we combine the ability of Gryffindor to make the enemies suddenly panic in tight situations with their boldness, there's also the added intrigue of slytherins having severely good knowledge of potions and not just chemical warfare but social engineering and such.Slytherins are also very underrated in the story. It is not talked enough about how many, like Snape, had discovered their own cruel and torturous spells and such. They were the innovators of the wizarding world, this was ignored and barely mentioned at all other than the few times that innovators were found. It is true that ravenclaws innovated as well but slytherins in vented far more, especially when it came to spells themselves.So what we have here is a severe powerhouse mentally and physically versus a master manipulator and emotional abuser combo.Which will win? The raw powerhouse or the emotionally abusive gamblers?
People are are good at justifying their actions after the fact and seeing faces on things where there aren't any (Like seeing a face on a piece of toast). People are really good at this. The problem with prophecy is that first you have to interpret the prophetic words and make the interpretation fit the current state of affairs. If you want a specific outcome, then you will bend those words to match your desired outcome. Even scientists can fall into this trap which is why their work and their data has to replicated by other scientists who desire a different outcome ;)The other problem is that history seems to repeat itself so it is easy to map a given prophecy to different points in time at the time it is occurring. This is why people have claimed the end of the world is eminent at different points in time.