quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A child has the capacity to reproduce

A pre-pubescent child does not have the capacity to reproduce.

Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child's body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction

You really need to get a fucking grip.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Voter registration fraud isn't the same thing as voter fraud. Fraudulent registrations aren't fraudulent votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A child has the capacity to reproduce

A pre-pubescent child does not have the capacity to reproduce.

Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child's body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction

You really need to get a fucking grip.

A pre pubescent child has all the organs needed to reproduce. the organs simply must mature. You really should learn biology.

You really need to get a new dance instructor. Your current one is robbing you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you don't know and are too stupid to use Google.

A living organism is defined by 8 characteristics
1) All living things are highly organized and contain many complex chemical substances.
2) All living things contain one or more cells.
3) All living things use energy.
4) Living things have a definite form and have a limited size.
5) Living things grow.
6) Living things respond to changes in the environment.
7) Living things can reproduce.
8) Living things eventually die.
 
A fetus fails both 6 and 7 so technically it is not alive. It may eventually be alive but at the fetus stage it is not yet fully alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

Once again... Voter fraud is not TINY or MINIMAL... there have been over 5000 reported cases of a "democratic voting initiative" changing the party of registered voters in just PA alone per the states attorneys office...

5000 in one state in less then 10 years ISNT tiny, and thats just something like changing someones party... Filthadelphia... had 110% democratic turn out in the 2012 elections....

So you claim. BTW that isn't vote fraud. No votes were cast.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you don't know and are too stupid to use Google.

A living organism is defined by 8 characteristics
1) All living things are highly organized and contain many complex chemical substances.
2) All living things contain one or more cells.
3) All living things use energy.
4) Living things have a definite form and have a limited size.
5) Living things grow.
6) Living things respond to changes in the environment.
7) Living things can reproduce.
8) Living things eventually die.
 
A fetus fails both 6 and 7 so technically it is not alive. It may eventually be alive but at the fetus stage it is not yet fully alive.

sooo a mule isn't a living organism then?

1. the sterile offspring of a female horse and a male donkey, valued as a work animal, having strong muscles, a body shaped like a horse, and donkey like long ears, small feet, and sure-footedness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Notice how this fool has to respond to the same post over and over again but can't actually point out anything wrong with it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten
Once again... Voter fraud is not TINY or MINIMAL... there have been over 5000 reported cases of a "democratic voting initiative" changing the party of registered voters in just PA alone per the states attorneys office...

5000 in one state in less then 10 years ISNT tiny, and thats just something like changing someones party... Filthadelphia... had 110% democratic turn out in the 2012 elections....

quote:

From the article I'm sourcing:

(The False Claim):
Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

(The Facts):
In the 2012 presidential election, Barack Obama did lose in every state that required all voters to provide photo ID, but those states were only four in number: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee. Meanwhile, contrary to what is claimed here, he also lost in many states that did not require all voters to provide photo ID: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

(NOTE: If you do not live in Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, or Tennessee, then your state did not require all voters to provide photo ID during the 2012 general election. As shown on a chart of Voter Identification Requirements by state, only those four states had strict photo ID laws in place during the 2012 general election. All other states either did not require voters to provide ID or accepted some forms of non-photo ID.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
The claim was that requiring id was a move to stop democrats from voting. If that is true then that means less democrats have id's than republicans. If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with some kind of proof. Now you say that the elderly have more problems but they are not all democrats so that doesn't prove anything. The poor have to have id to collect medicaid so that's not it. College students may lean left but not enough to make a difference and the republican ones would have the same problems so that's bullshit too. Now one poster did admit a while back that she was all for voter id requirements until she found out the right thought it was a good idea. It's probably the closest to the truth that I am going to get. The rest just keep singing "but it's to block democrats" because that is what there were taught to sing.

Republicans would not push for something unless they stood to gain from it politically (i.e. get more Republicans into office). Same as Democrats, right? However, Democrats are not the ones pushing for more strict requirements with voting. Since the amount of voter fraud is so tiny as to be rendered irrelevant to state and federal elections. The idea of Voter ID hinges on the false belief that voter fraud is rampant and destroying the nation. After all, some black guy got elected to the White House! And then got re-elected! That must mean (according to conservative/libertarian dogma) that there is something wrong with the voting process.

Republican/Tea Party are not looking for more people to vote, but less. The less that vote, the more wingnuts and lame-ass idiots get into office. So making it harder for people to vote, would be to their advantage. I pointed out the primary hurdles to the three largest groups that would be effected by this legal concept. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. Finally...

...Voter ID violates my 4th amendment rights!

still can't answer the question I see...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten
Once again... Voter fraud is not TINY or MINIMAL... there have been over 5000 reported cases of a "democratic voting initiative" changing the party of registered voters in just PA alone per the states attorneys office...
5000 in one state in less then 10 years ISNT tiny, and thats just something like changing someones party... Filthadelphia... had 110% democratic turn out in the 2012 elections....

Voter registration fraud isn't the same thing as voter fraud. Fraudulent registrations aren't fraudulent votes.

Fraudulent votes are things like someone voting who wasn't alive at the time of the election, or someone voting as someone else, or someone voting several times. But, those never happen. Except when they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


There is no in between, either it's dead or alive.

Viable, not alive. It is not life. Blastocyst? Embryo?

You suck up live chickens in an omelette do you? live beef in a ribeye?

No I don't eat live chickens or beef. That's beyond sick but since you seem to have the need to respond with extremes, I am not a bit surprised you would go there. If the fetus wasn't alive, it would not continue to grow. This isn't rocket science for fucks sake. Why do you have to be so pig headed.

How do we know it continued to grow? hey, an egg is alive, same condition. Don't be so fucking sick and extreme.

We are fuckin this dog on voter id, does the fuckin thing have voter id? Is it a citizen? Answer to both, no. Is it people? No, doesn't have rights under our constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you don't know and are too stupid to use Google.

A living organism is defined by 8 characteristics
1) All living things are highly organized and contain many complex chemical substances.
2) All living things contain one or more cells.
3) All living things use energy.
4) Living things have a definite form and have a limited size.
5) Living things grow.
6) Living things respond to changes in the environment.
7) Living things can reproduce.
8) Living things eventually die.
 
A fetus fails both 6 and 7 so technically it is not alive. It may eventually be alive but at the fetus stage it is not yet fully alive.

Fetuses respond to their environment, if fact if it changes too drastically it can be killed by it. They are also reproducing cells as they grow so yes they do fit 6 and 7. But using your logic, kids can't reproduce until their bodies develop, are you going to claim they aren't alive yet either.

Dividing cells is not what the line is talking about. A child has the capacity to reproduce it is simply not yet ready. A fetus completely lacks the ability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
The claim was that requiring id was a move to stop democrats from voting. If that is true then that means less democrats have id's than republicans. If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with some kind of proof. Now you say that the elderly have more problems but they are not all democrats so that doesn't prove anything. The poor have to have id to collect medicaid so that's not it. College students may lean left but not enough to make a difference and the republican ones would have the same problems so that's bullshit too. Now one poster did admit a while back that she was all for voter id requirements until she found out the right thought it was a good idea. It's probably the closest to the truth that I am going to get. The rest just keep singing "but it's to block democrats" because that is what there were taught to sing.

Republicans would not push for something unless they stood to gain from it politically (i.e. get more Republicans into office). Same as Democrats, right? However, Democrats are not the ones pushing for more strict requirements with voting. Since the amount of voter fraud is so tiny as to be rendered irrelevant to state and federal elections. The idea of Voter ID hinges on the false belief that voter fraud is rampant and destroying the nation. After all, some black guy got elected to the White House! And then got re-elected! That must mean (according to conservative/libertarian dogma) that there is something wrong with the voting process.

Republican/Tea Party are not looking for more people to vote, but less. The less that vote, the more wingnuts and lame-ass idiots get into office. So making it harder for people to vote, would be to their advantage. I pointed out the primary hurdles to the three largest groups that would be effected by this legal concept. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't make it any less true. Finally...

...Voter ID violates my 4th amendment rights!

still can't answer the question I see...

In order to have a question, a question mark (?) needs to be part of the sentence asking the question. Do you see any question marks (?) in your 'essay'? 'No', because you were not asking a question, but making a statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you don't know and are too stupid to use Google.

A living organism is defined by 8 characteristics
1) All living things are highly organized and contain many complex chemical substances.
2) All living things contain one or more cells.
3) All living things use energy.
4) Living things have a definite form and have a limited size.
5) Living things grow.
6) Living things respond to changes in the environment.
7) Living things can reproduce.
8) Living things eventually die.
 
A fetus fails both 6 and 7 so technically it is not alive. It may eventually be alive but at the fetus stage it is not yet fully alive.

sooo a mule isn't a living organism then?

1. the sterile offspring of a female horse and a male donkey, valued as a work animal, having strong muscles, a body shaped like a horse, and donkey like long ears, small feet, and sure-footedness.

A mule has reproductive organs and can reproduce. Do try to not be such a complete embarrassment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Wrong. A fetus may eventually become an organism that can reproduce but it is not itself an organism that can reproduce. It is not an organism at all in the technical sense.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)