ActualCornHusker

Libertarians from a social perspective typically abide by the non aggression principle. You can look it up if you're unfamiliar. And I'd say in the different libertarian forums I've had discussions in, the abortion issue is pretty split. Bottom line for me, it's not the woman's body that is being harmed here - it's her baby's.

Christians have maintained for decades that a fetus is a human being with intrinsic worth, and it has taken the "science" community a long time to catch up because they're just now beginning to accept that fact. Most likely not, but the government welfare programs don't either, so I don't see why that's always the excuse of why we have to have all of the existing govt programs. Although I'd be interested what you think of the idea of a negative income tax (form of UBI promoted by Milton Friedman) in place of existing welfare programs

How about this: give people the option to direct where their money gets sent after it's stolen from them. All non-profit organizations are eligible as well as government programs, and taxpayers can log into a website and select which organizations they'd like to send their money to. Then the far left can send their money to planned parenthood, the hard right can send their money to the defense department, and reasonable and rational individuals can send their money to actual charities that do good things that we value. In all reality though, I've always been intrigued by the idea of a UBI in the form of a negative income tax kind of like what Milton Friedman talked about. The structure could be set up not to disincentivize people from entering the work force. Even as a libertarian who despises government programs, this is one issue that I could go for as long as it was put in place of all of our existing welfare programs.

I'd rather have a child raised by a loving gay couple than a heterosexual couple that is abusive or negligent, so yeah I hear you.

Please see my most recent reply above.

The bolded is always an interesting point that's made a lot due to conservatives not wanting the government to take care of the child, but the truth of the matter is that conservatives are a fair amount more charitable than liberals LINK

Why does "caring for people" always have to involve sending a$$-loads of money to the most corrupt organization in the world with hopes that it makes it to people who need it? Not to mention, those are 2 completely separate issues.

But wouldn't you agree that there's a difference between belief, such as my belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and died to save those who believe in Him from their sin, and verifiable scientific fact? What's interesting is that the Christian community has been ahead of the "science" crowd on this one for a long time.

Semantics, but the point stands.

I understand what you're saying - however an 8-month-old is also completely dependent upon the mother for survival, but that burden does not justify the parent to be able to kill their child. In a perfect world, there would be no abortion whatsoever, even in cases of rape or incest. Obviously we don't live in a perfect world though. I really don't have the answers, other than to say that in my opinion the closer we can get the abortion rate to 0 the better. How you get there is the tricky part that if you're not careful could get awfully authoritarian quickly.

I really don't see why everyone (at least a significant portion of people) couldn't acknowledge that the baby is a human being. Even a lot of pro-choicers-for-any-reason have begun acknowledging that it's a human but that they're okay with killing them anyways. I agree with your other post about doing other things to educate people so that abortion rates continue to plummet, but there's no reason we can't do both, and I think the education that the tiny bundle of cells inside the woman is a living human being with its own unique DNA is education that should be provided to women as well.

Is there a highlight tape of Drew from Texas Tech?

How is it silly? Please explain. I have a feeling which direction you'll go here but would rather you explain than me assume

OK I read the thread and a couple tweets from the 2 guys the poster tagged as well. It's definitely an interesting theory.

I hear you. It's not an easy topic to discuss, but to dig just a little more, if we recognize that the baby is a human being, is it really the woman's body that this has to do with?

I read the part that showed up on the forum. I know in your mind conservatives are some radical group of rabid animals these days, but seriously... If it was actually leaked by a person on the conservative side, then that person is a moron. Anyone with an IQ over 50 would know what would ensue after that leak, which is hordes of radical lefties showing up at the doorstep of the supreme court to cry and whine, and the lives and safety of the 5 judges as well as their families would be in danger. It totally could be that it was someone on the right who leaked it, but MAN they'd be dumb.

Doesn't really matter who leaked it - they should be fired at the very least, and potentially prosecuted. But the most likely explanation for the leak was that a radical leftist leaked it knowing that the intimidation forces would be set upon the 5 who are voting to overturn it to try to get them to change their vote before the decision is made official.

Here comes Blue Anon

I don't know enough in-depth about all that, it's more of a curious question for me. I've heard Damon Benning talk a few times about our tackles playing too tall, and also kind of talking about how he likes shorter D Linemen because they can get under the pads of the OL and create more leverage. But my general read has been that since Frost got here, there have consistently been OL recruits that people have been very excited about, but their play didn't live up to expectations, which mainly points to coaching and development.

Question: If we acknowledge that a baby in the womb is a human being, how do we reconcile that with the idea of allowing any abortions at all? I'm just genuinely interested in the rationale here.

LINK One has been found by the DOJ of engaging in racist housing policies twice, the other hasn't. Again, Joe has never built anything, but here's a fun video with just a few examples: Joe being racist (and weird). Mostly Joe's racism comes in the standard Democrat form: Bigotry of low expectations. One has more than a few times followed/liked/retweeted s#!t from alt-right and neo-nazi twitter accounts, the other hasn't. There's no shortage of horrendous things Joe Biden has said or lied about Oh, don't forget when he casually threatened American citizens with nukes One has openly asked our biggest geopolitical enemy to spy on their political opponent, the other hasn't. 1st of all, that's quite the leftist exaggeration of what Trump did, but what do you think about Biden telling Russia (and all of our other enemies) exactly where we are most vulnerable Or what about the shady deals with the CCP That's only the easiest, smallest low hanging fruit start of the list. Links can be found within the quote of your post. Enjoy. What I posted is literally just scratching the surface. There should be no doubt that the Biden family are liars and criminals, similar to the Clintons but not to the scale that the Clintons were able to achieve (that we know of). Biden is every bad adjective that has been used to describe Trump, and more.

You obvioiusly haven't paid attention then because Biden checks off every one of those boxes, except for the ones about ripping off contractors and housing practices because he's never actually built anything or been productive in any way. If you think I'm about to defend Trump, I'm not. But one of the slime balls we're talking about is a part of a protected class of people and gets his dirty laundry covered up, while the other somehow is an outsider and not only gets his dirty laundry shown for all to see, but also has his (already bad) laundry exaggerated and manipulated to make him seem even worse than he is (which is bad enough).

Fair. I also wonder if Raiola will have a preference for different body types than the guys Frost & Austin recruited over the last 4-5 years. OL & DL are the 2 groups that take the longest to transform, and are also the most important position groups on the team. I hope Frost & Raiola earn the opportunity to build that going forward

I'd contend that based on the confirmed evidence we have on both, Biden is the far more sketchy individual, both personally and politically. But he's a part of the "in group" so he gets covered for Edit: So that I'm clear, that doesn't mean I think Trump is admirable as a person, but good God...

As BIG ERN and Decked have pointed out, as long as our tackles stay healthy I feel decent about the OL at the very least