El Unico

Faith filled Entrepreneur seeking to build and guide others on this journey called life!

[Franco Escudero @EscuderoFrann]

@babynucifera nosotros si sabemos comportarnos cuando ganamos, esto es respeto al rival cosa que muy pocos paises tienen.
Lo que paso con ecuador vs mexico deberia darles verguenza, no se maltrata a los visitantes y mucho menos si son de latinoamerica

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@alondralasso @worldlibertario Puede ser que nos superes en turismo, y tener la dicha de estar alado de los United pero ni aún así aprovechan. PERO HAMAS NOS VAS SUPERAR EN 🍆 . A punto de HUEVO!!!!! RESPETE A LOS MACHOS DE VERDAD NO MANCHES!!

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@codiguillos He was elected president?! How stupid are you…. Let me try Spanish.. FUE ELEGIDO POR PUEBLO GRAN ANIMAL

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@Heccles94 Elon Musk Hates I-L-L-E-G-A-L migration. Legal migration is okay in my book and everyone else’s.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@harryjsisson Im more than sure he wouldn’t give 2 fucks about it since that building is worth more than his net worth and brings in millions a year in revenue. Only bitches like you would worry about it

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Nobody is against feeding hungry kids. The question is why New York spends more per student than almost anywhere in America and still struggles with literacy, math proficiency, and failing schools. And news flash, government doesn’t ‘give’ free meals. Taxpayers pay for them.

If you’re going to brag about 400 million meals, also explain:
• Why so many students still can’t read at grade level.
• Why families keep leaving New York.
• Why taxes keep going up.
• Why bureaucracies grow while outcomes stagnate.

Republicans aren’t saying feeding children is bad. They’re asking why throwing billions more at government programs is always considered success, even when the results tell a different story. Adults should be able to hold two ideas at once: feed children and demand accountability.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Ed, do you know what “separation of church and state” actually means?
It means the government can’t establish a national religion or force people to worship. It doesn’t mean every historical or literary reference to the Bible must be erased from public education.

Schools teach Homer, the Quran, Greek mythology, and the philosophies of Confucius because they shaped civilization. The Bible has arguably had a greater impact on Western law, literature, art, and history than any other book ever written.

If students can read Shakespeare, they can read Proverbs. If they can study Greek myths, they can study the Sermon on the Mount.

Teaching excerpts from the Bible as literature and historical influence isn’t establishing a church, it’s teaching history. Calling that a “direct violation” of church-state separation isn’t a legal argument; it’s an emotional reaction to Christianity having a seat at the table. Sit down, you have no argument!

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Equal rights doesn’t mean equal outcomes or equal perceptions.

Men don’t get praised for sleeping around nearly as much as social media pretends, they get judged too. The difference is that every action has consequences, and society is free to have opinions about everyone’s choices.

You’re free to sleep with 1 person or 100. Others are equally free to decide what qualities they value in a partner.

Freedom means you can make your choices. It doesn’t mean everyone has to celebrate them.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@politicsecu Son payasos la RC5

[El Unico @dalves1_]

You’re admitting it’s arbitrary. That’s the problem. If a baby is fully human one minute before birth and fully human one minute after birth, then birth isn’t creating personhood, it’s just changing location. We don’t determine human rights by geography. Crossing six inches through a birth canal doesn’t magically transform a non-person into a person.

And your second point is simply incorrect. We limit rights all the time when exercising them harms innocent people. You don’t have the right to assault someone, drive drunk, or end an innocent life because another right is more convenient.

The real question isn’t ‘Where do we draw a line?’ The question is: ‘What principle makes a human being valuable?’ If you can’t point to a difference in humanity before and after birth, then the threshold you’re defending is a legal convenience, not a moral argument.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Un Mamerto completo!! Cuando lo hace el, es amazing, pero cuando lo hace Noboa es malo. Un PAYASO 🤡 ES

[Jorge Izaguirre Giler @GrafikEc]

@MashiRafael Y cuando usted lo hacía.... Eso estaba correcto..... ????
Hay cosas que es mejor no olvidar..... Venga a celebrar la victoria de la @LaTri a la Víctor Emilio Estrada el gobierno le pone escolta para precautelar su seguridad.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Rights are not absolute. Every legal system on Earth recognizes that one person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin.

You have the right to swing your fist. You don’t have the right to swing it through someone else’s face.

The entire abortion debate hinges on one question: Is the unborn child a human being with rights? If the answer is yes, then their right to life absolutely limits another person’s choices unjust like the rights of every other innocent human being limit ours every day.

We already accept this principle everywhere else in society. Rights don’t include the power to intentionally end another innocent person’s life. Ya jump

[El Unico @dalves1_]

So let me get this straight: we all agree that a newborn one minute before birth is a person, but somehow crossing six inches down the birth canal magically grants human rights?

Rights don’t come from size, location, or dependency. A premature baby in the NICU is dependent on others too. Dependency has never been the standard for determining personhood.

And as for rights “invalidating” the rights of others, every society recognizes that your rights end where another innocent human’s life begins.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@SpamuelJ93 what a COWARD!!! BLOCKING ME 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[El Unico @dalves1_]

🤣🤣🤣 Thanks for proving the point. Saying abortion can save lives in rare medical emergencies doesn’t mean every abortion is a life saving procedure. We don’t build policy around the exception and pretend it’s the rule.

By your own numbers, over 99% of abortions in 2022 were not performed because the mother’s life was in immediate danger. Acknowledging that a tiny fraction are medically necessary isn’t a contradiction, it’s called being intellectually honest.

And by the way, calling unborn children “clumps of cells” one minute and then calling pregnant women “full-blown human adults” the next doesn’t magically end the ethical debate. It just means you’re arguing with emotion instead of facts. So you go fuck yourself ignorant POS. I’ll be here all week schooling your BITCH ASS!!

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@RichardAngwin Everyone agrees with you dumbass. Illegal immigration is the problem. In the word ILLEGAL!! Hooked on phonics?!

[El Unico @dalves1_]

Of course women have rights. That’s not the question. The question is whether an unborn child has rights too. If the answer is yes, then abortion isn’t simply a “women’s rights” issue any more than infanticide is a “parental rights” issue.

How you answer this question will help you navigate this issue.

Do rights depend on your ability to exercise them, or do they exist simply because you are a human being?

human rights frameworks adopt the latter view: rights are inherent to human beings and are not contingent on age, intelligence, independence, or ability to exercise them.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

You must be the dumbest MF on here. No worries I got your bitch ass. An embryo surviving cryopreservation doesn’t prove it’s not human any more than a hibernating bear proves it’s dead. A newborn can’t survive in a freezer. Neither can a 30 year old, your grandmother, or you. So congratulations dipshit, you’ve discovered that different stages of life have different biological properties.

By this logic, because a baby can’t reproduce and an adult can, babies aren’t human either.
This isn’t an argument. It’s a middle-school science fact dressed up as philosophy. You’re confusing “functions differently” with “isn’t a human life.”

If your best defense of abortion is, “I can freeze one and not the other,” you’ve accidentally argued that developmental differences determine value, a standard that falls apart in about 30 seconds of serious thought. Keep’’em coming I got all week to school your bitch ass!

[El Unico @dalves1_]

A parasite? That’s an emotional talking point, not a scientific argument. The unborn child has its own DNA, its own heartbeat, its own blood type in many cases. That’s not a parasite, that’s a developing human being. Scientifically proven!

And let’s talk about your other point. You’re saying a child might have a hard life, be unplanned, or be born into poverty. Since when did we start measuring someone’s right to live based on the circumstances they’re born into? If that’s the standard, where does it end?
Here’s the bigger question: if dependence on another human being determines your value, then newborns, the disabled, and the elderly are all in trouble too. The potential for struggle doesn’t erase the potential for meaning.

A civilized society doesn’t solve difficult situations by ending innocent human life. It solves them by helping mothers and children. That’s the real conversation.

[El Unico @dalves1_]

@mehdirhasan Um…It’s summer time in Europe, hot days are normal in Summer.