MTG Calls for Red State Secession

I would negotiate a lease in-perpetuity of $100 per year for all of our military facilities currently there. A protection treaty baring them from signing defense treaties with other nations and let them be.

Let them keep the bases like we did in Afghanistan.
 
You believe "Roe v Wade did it brilliantly" answers the questions I asked? Go ahead then. Explain that and I'll gladly answer those.

1. That point isn't the same for all and changes, but is also not the question. The question was "if they can be saved, why wouldn't you"
2. The same people who pay the price for saving a new born that is given up by the mother
3. No.
If you can't answer the questions "at what point is a fetus deemed savable?", "who makes the determination?", and "who pays?"
then your question is moot.

But as a general rule, if an aborted fetus can be saved, I have no problem with efforts to save it if the expense isn't prohibitive.

And.....what is your distinction between a fertilized egg outside of the womb and inside of the womb?
 
If you can't answer the questions "at what point is a fetus deemed savable?", "who makes the determination?", and "who pays?"
then your question is moot.

But as a general rule, if an aborted fetus can be saved, I have no problem with efforts to save it if the expense isn't prohibitive.

I very clearly answered each of your questions.

We are getting closer to agreeing. Lets make sure I understand you:

1. If the mother wishes to terminate and the child can be saved, we do save the child as long as it doesn't cost too much.

2. Yet, if the child is already born outside of an abortion clinic (rather than inside of one), then we should save/care for the child with tax payer dollars?

3. We are closer to agreeing for sure, but I'm still not sure why you see these 2 children as different classes that should be treated differently in terms of their care? If I surrender a baby we should do everything to save it. If I abort a baby we should do somethings as long as they're not too much....why? Why wouldn't we do everything we could for both populations? You want to treat one as second class citizens but have yet to explain your reasoning/standard.
 
Then it’s a fair comparison when JB stated the US has nuclear weapons and F15’s , he was implying his intent to use those weapons against US citizens and states with the thought of secession.

Talking about and displaying your weapon in a place built for diplomacy aren't the same thing. And you know that, even if you don't want to know it. Heh, heh.
He floats through the air
With the greatest of ease
The daring young man
On the flying trapeze
 
I would negotiate a lease in-perpetuity of $100 per year for all of our military facilities currently there. A protection treaty baring them from signing defense treaties with other nations and let them be.
Seems rational and reasonable ;/

What would MTG & Fox say?
What would CNN say?
What would Clarksvol say?

If you think the South could secede, how about Hawaii?
If you say - “hell no” to the South, how about Hawaii?
 
Why not purchase Pearl outright (if they were willing to sell)?

That would be an option if they were willing to sell, I just don't think many sovereign nations would agree to sell contiguous territory to another nation.
 
That would be an option if they were willing to sell, I just don't think many sovereign nations would agree to sell contiguous territory to another nation.
And you gotta figure Pearl plays a big part in the pending defense treaty.
 
I'd say most all of our foreign military bases are leased in some manner. Hasn't been much of an issue.
And I’d agree about “most bases”. Pearl is very very special. A natural deep water protected port right in the middle of the pacific. The bases are inconsequential. It’s the geography that has value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol

VN Store



Back
Top