Guest viewing is limited

Donald Trump running for president

They focus too much on their “agenda” and not their consequences.
back in the day there was a appropriate saying for this...good intentions, unintended consequences.

problem is, these days i believe democrats start out knowing there will be bad consequences and just plain don't give a damn---like you said all they care about is their agenda.
 
back in the day there was a appropriate saying for this...good intentions, unintended consequences.

problem is, these days i believe democrats start out knowing there will be bad consequences and just plain don't give a damn---like you said all they care about is their agenda.

It won’t be long before a case is brought before SCOTUS and the argument being a state that takes away qualified immunity will is violating the rights of the petitioner due to SCOTUS previous ruling on it.

What a lot of people don’t understand is qualified immunity protects all public servants such as teachers. Say a teacher sees a child with lot of bruises and seems withdrawn. She thinks there’s a possibility the child has been abused. Get the school’s social worker and nurse involved. The parent is contacted and told by the social worker that the nurse observed bruises all over the child’s body and there’s an investigation open alleging child abuse. The parent flips out shows proof the child has a medical condition that causes the bruising. This is confirmed and there is no child abuse. Parent in turn sues everyone involved including the school system. Qualified immunity kicks in and the case goes no where. But take it away and the courts will be flooded with BS and more governmental entities will pay out to settle then they would if qualified immunity existed.
 
This is going to cost the City of NY as well. Very seldom does anyone sue just the officer. Why would they? The deep pockets are the City Governments. This is going to back fire all across the nation with the cities that have done this.

I am so fortunate I made the decision years ago to live upstate. NYC is a liberal infested violent corrupt shyt hole, really sad. NYC used to be the place the globe envies.
 
what amazes me is how WOKE democrats/liberals are always defending islam?

when they have no problem criticizing christianity.


Even when said islamists are throwing gay guys off the roofs of buildings! This selective outrage has no limits. The enemy of my enemy, and all...
 
It won’t be long before a case is brought before SCOTUS and the argument being a state that takes away qualified immunity will is violating the rights of the petitioner due to SCOTUS previous ruling on it.

What a lot of people don’t understand is qualified immunity protects all public servants such as teachers. Say a teacher sees a child with lot of bruises and seems withdrawn. She thinks there’s a possibility the child has been abused. Get the school’s social worker and nurse involved. The parent is contacted and told by the social worker that the nurse observed bruises all over the child’s body and there’s an investigation open alleging child abuse. The parent flips out shows proof the child has a medical condition that causes the bruising. This is confirmed and there is no child abuse. Parent in turn sues everyone involved including the school system. Qualified immunity kicks in and the case goes no where. But take it away and the courts will be flooded with BS and more governmental entities will pay out to settle then they would if qualified immunity existed.
money for nothing is democrats motto...the courts would be flooded with frivolous law cases.

if anyone doesn't believe history repeats itself look at the roman empire.
 
Trump was NOT lumping all Muslims into the same basket, and his travel ban did not extend to all Muslim countries.

The travel ban DID apply to countries that had both Muslim extremism and more importantly, insufficient government control and record keeping to properly vet those applying for travel.

To attempt to debate the Trump travel ban without referencing the broken vetting process would be retarded (* in the clinical non-woke sense of the word)
this is only the beginning...everything that goes wrong in the next 3.9 years-guess who will be blamed???
 
this stuff always backfires--why is it that democrats never learn.
It isn't that the democrats never learn. I believe it is more accurate to say that those who vote for leftist democrats fail to see the casual relationship between these votes and the resulting elimination of civil liberties. The people who vote for the leftist officials are the ones that never learn. The Democrats have this down perfectly.

The left does this by continually creating fear in the populace. The populace reacts by claiming that "the government needs to do something". The left is more than happy to solve the problem (even if it is just perceived) that they, themselves, created.

If we assume, just for a moment, that the left does or allows these types of things intentionally to result in chaos (not because they have not learned - but because they HAVE learned), so that the same people who created/caused the "problem" can step in to solve the problem - then it is seen in a more sinister light. Creating a problem (and a group of victims) affords the governing left an opportunity to step in and grab additional power and increase taxes. "Someone has to do something" - OK, the governing left is happy to provide a series of unrealistic and costly solutions, but these solutions only deal with the symptoms, never the problems themselves. If a problem actually exists is immaterial. There only needs to be "feelings" that a problem exists, not facts that it actually exists.

Rinse and repeat.

The entire cycle is based on fear. The most prevalent fear is "white supremacy"; something now alleged to be a systemic and common element in every aspect of American life. Of course, there is no evidence to this, but those are merely details - and they can be overridden by repeating the mantra-like narrative that claims otherwise.

That is the problem, we are told that every day, claimed by the Democratic leftists. All non-white and non-male groups are victimized by the victimizing white supremacist males. There needn't be any reality to any of what is being alleged, all that is required is a narrative that convinces people (by repeatedly appealing to their inner selfishness) that people are being victimized and are therefore not responsible for their own failure to ascend to whatever objective they had. "If only I wasn't a victim then I would have ...".

Guess who is willing to step in to solve this "problem"? Guess who will pay for it?
 
Last edited:
It isn't that the democrats never learn. I believe it is more accurate to say that those who vote for leftist democrats fail to see the casual relationship between these votes and the resulting elimination of civil liberties. The people who vote for the leftist officials are the ones that never learn. The Democrats have this down perfectly.

The left does this by continually creating fear in the populace. The populace reacts by claiming that "the government needs to do something". The left is more than happy to solve the problem (even if it is just perceived) that they, themselves, created.

If we assume, just for a moment, that the left does or allows these types of things intentionally to result in chaos (not because they have not learned - but because they HAVE learned), so that the same people who created/caused the "problem" can step in to solve the problem - then it is seen in a more sinister light. Creating a problem (and a group of victims) affords the governing left an opportunity to step in and grab additional power and increase taxes. "Someone has to do something" - OK, the governing left is happy to provide a series of unrealistic and costly solutions, but these solutions only deal with the symptoms, never the problems themselves. If a problem actually exists is immaterial. There only needs to be "feelings" that a problem exists, not facts that it actually exists.

Rinse and repeat.

The entire cycle is based on fear. The most prevalent fear is "white supremacy"; something now alleged to be a systemic and common element in every aspect of American life. Of course, there is no evidence to this, but those are merely details - and they can be overridden by repeating the mantra-like narrative that claims otherwise.

That is the problem, we are told that every day, claimed by the Democratic leftists. All non-white male groups are victimized by the victimizing white supremacist males. There needn't be any reality to any of what is being alleged, all that is required is a narrative that convinces people (by repeatedly appealing to their inner selfishness) that people are being victimized and are therefore not responsible for their own failure to ascend to whatever objective they had. "If only I wasn't a victim then I would have ...".

Guess who is willing to step in to solve this "problem"? Guess who will pay for it?
this is why i am glad my wife and i retired when we did...in less than 10 years there won't even be social security money left-we figured at least we would get something back for all those years of paying into it....
 
It isn't that the democrats never learn. I believe it is more accurate to say that those who vote for leftist democrats fail to see the casual relationship between these votes and the resulting elimination of civil liberties. The people who vote for the leftist officials are the ones that never learn. The Democrats have this down perfectly.

The left does this by continually creating fear in the populace. The populace reacts by claiming that "the government needs to do something". The left is more than happy to solve the problem (even if it is just perceived) that they, themselves, created.

If we assume, just for a moment, that the left does or allows these types of things intentionally to result in chaos (not because they have not learned - but because they HAVE learned), so that the same people who created/caused the "problem" can step in to solve the problem - then it is seen in a more sinister light. Creating a problem (and a group of victims) affords the governing left an opportunity to step in and grab additional power and increase taxes. "Someone has to do something" - OK, the governing left is happy to provide a series of unrealistic and costly solutions, but these solutions only deal with the symptoms, never the problems themselves. If a problem actually exists is immaterial. There only needs to be "feelings" that a problem exists, not facts that it actually exists.

Rinse and repeat.

The entire cycle is based on fear. The most prevalent fear is "white supremacy"; something now alleged to be a systemic and common element in every aspect of American life. Of course, there is no evidence to this, but those are merely details - and they can be overridden by repeating the mantra-like narrative that claims otherwise.

That is the problem, we are told that every day, claimed by the Democratic leftists. All non-white and non-male groups are victimized by the victimizing white supremacist males. There needn't be any reality to any of what is being alleged, all that is required is a narrative that convinces people (by repeatedly appealing to their inner selfishness) that people are being victimized and are therefore not responsible for their own failure to ascend to whatever objective they had. "If only I wasn't a victim then I would have ...".

Guess who is willing to step in to solve this "problem"? Guess who will pay for it?



Well said brother!
 
It isn't that the democrats never learn. I believe it is more accurate to say that those who vote for leftist democrats fail to see the casual relationship between these votes and the resulting elimination of civil liberties. The people who vote for the leftist officials are the ones that never learn. The Democrats have this down perfectly.

The left does this by continually creating fear in the populace. The populace reacts by claiming that "the government needs to do something". The left is more than happy to solve the problem (even if it is just perceived) that they, themselves, created.

If we assume, just for a moment, that the left does or allows these types of things intentionally to result in chaos (not because they have not learned - but because they HAVE learned), so that the same people who created/caused the "problem" can step in to solve the problem - then it is seen in a more sinister light. Creating a problem (and a group of victims) affords the governing left an opportunity to step in and grab additional power and increase taxes. "Someone has to do something" - OK, the governing left is happy to provide a series of unrealistic and costly solutions, but these solutions only deal with the symptoms, never the problems themselves. If a problem actually exists is immaterial. There only needs to be "feelings" that a problem exists, not facts that it actually exists.

Rinse and repeat.

The entire cycle is based on fear. The most prevalent fear is "white supremacy"; something now alleged to be a systemic and common element in every aspect of American life. Of course, there is no evidence to this, but those are merely details - and they can be overridden by repeating the mantra-like narrative that claims otherwise.

That is the problem, we are told that every day, claimed by the Democratic leftists. All non-white and non-male groups are victimized by the victimizing white supremacist males. There needn't be any reality to any of what is being alleged, all that is required is a narrative that convinces people (by repeatedly appealing to their inner selfishness) that people are being victimized and are therefore not responsible for their own failure to ascend to whatever objective they had. "If only I wasn't a victim then I would have ...".

Guess who is willing to step in to solve this "problem"? Guess who will pay for it?
Are you saying that conservatives don't use the fear strategy themselves? Have we forgotten the war started to find weapons of mass destruction in a country not linked to 9/11? Have we forgotten Trumps anti Muslim stance on entire countries? Have we forgotten his constant election stealing ramblings?
 
Trump was NOT lumping all Muslims into the same basket, and his travel ban did not extend to all Muslim countries.

The travel ban DID apply to countries that had both Muslim extremism and more importantly, insufficient government control and record keeping to properly vet those applying for travel.

To attempt to debate the Trump travel ban without referencing the broken vetting process would be retarded (* in the clinical non-woke sense of the word)
People apply directly to the US to get access, my govt has never applied for that on my behalf when needing even transit through the US.

And that application gets reviewed.
 
Are you saying that conservatives don't use the fear strategy themselves?
No, I am not. I said it was a tool of the left. I did not say it was exclusively used by the left, although, in my opinion, the left is far more inclined to create fear to bring about change. That is not a Republican motive, at least not to the extent I understand it. Republicans are not seeking to fundamentally change the country. The Republicans are not attempting to pit various factions against one another. The Republicans are not trying to create victims and victimizers. To the extent the Republicans are creating fear, to me it looks like they are trying to create awareness of the many social, financial, political and religious implications of the fundamental changes being imposed by the left and shining a light on the likely outcomes.

Edit: Also, I believe Trump's allegation of election impropriety are his honest opinion. I do not see it as being based on a desire to conjure up fear. There were over 240 sworn attestations of people who alleged to have first hand knowledge of voting impropriety. People much more skilled in statistics that I am have concluded that it was a mathematical impossibility for the dramatic voting result turnaround to have occurred.

I think it us safe to say that some voting impropriety probably occurred, but I would make the same claim for all elections - people do crappy things and justify their bad actions - even when those actions were selfishly and dishonestly taken to increase the likelihood of them getting what they want.

If there was some amount of voting impropriety, the question then becomes was whatever voting impropriety that may have occurred in sufficient quantity to change the results? I have no idea. Was Trump wrong? I have no idea. But do I think his statement made to conjure up fear? No, I do not believe so. It was either his honest view or the result of an ego that would not accommodate a loss. Again, I have no idea - I voted honestly.

But, as a point of reflection, many major cities were boarded up prior to the election. They were not boarded up in case Joe Biden won; they were boarded up in case Trump won. Why was that?
 
Last edited:
When Islam is practiced according to the teachings of Muhammad, it is extreme. When a Muslim does not practice according to the teachings of Muhammad, many of the clerics would consider them a non practicing muslim; totally down for non practicing muslims in that regard.
This is 100% made up.

If you are willing to say that, then the teachings of Old Testament Christianity are also promote extremism when taken as intended.

Its all about interpretation, which is something theologians debate about constantly.
 
Are you saying that conservatives don't use the fear strategy themselves? Have we forgotten the war started to find weapons of mass destruction in a country not linked to 9/11? Have we forgotten Trumps anti Muslim stance on entire countries? Have we forgotten his constant election stealing ramblings?

Just because our government faught countless endless wars does not mean we would support the idea of allowing revenge on innocent Americans.
 
Just because our government faught countless endless wars does not mean we would support the idea of allowing revenge on innocent Americans.
Noone is saying you need to support it, but it should give you insight to their resolve.

If you bomb countries relentlessly for years, expect them to get mad about it. You would do the same.
 
Noone is saying you need to support it, but it should give you insight to their resolve.

If you bomb countries relentlessly for years, expect them to get mad about it. You would do the same.

Yeah I agree with you 100%.
 
Yeah I agree with you 100%.
But that doesn't justify it. I just understand why, even if I still condemn it
 
This is 100% made up.

If you are willing to say that, then the teachings of Old Testament Christianity are also promote extremism when taken as intended.

Its all about interpretation, which is something theologians debate about constantly.
basically the difference between islam and christianity is the new testament.
 
People apply directly to the US to get access, my govt has never applied for that on my behalf when needing even transit through the US.

And that application gets reviewed.


Do you REALLY not know what's going on, or are you just busting balls??

When you apply to come to the US, the US looks up your records and cross references with Australia (?) To make sure you don't have any terrorist ties.

So if you are from Syria or Libya, etc... who does our govt ask to find out about you? If no functioning govt, fake papers, no real way to confirm identity and intentions it would be irresponsible to let them in.

The problem isn't the Trump govt, the problem is at the source of travel due to inaccuracies in a land with very real threats and no way to verify who is good or bad.
 
Its not even 'Demtards vs. Pubtards' anymore. Its about "wacky anti-American tards who open borders to anyone for their votes, while turning the country into a 3rd world ****-hole", vs. those who don't...

Throw in a thousand other wacky things, like boys and girls seen as one gender, letting males beat up girls in MMA and other sports, having "mostly peaceful" riots while burning, looting, shooting, killing cops and kids and receiving a nobel peace prize while doing so, etc.

One group are Americans, the other are a bunch of backward, bizarro-land water-heads. Its quite simple even a libturd can understand it.
 
Creepy Joe, the child sniffing perverts America. Raped his own daughter (see her diary?). Hunter raped and abused kids, crack-head, both take illegal China money. Trump said the word "pussy" and was attacked for 4 years, these clowns actually grab little kids B.T.P., and are cheered. Libturdz, truly disgusting retardz...

Invalid Link Removed
 
This is 100% made up.

If you are willing to say that, then the teachings of Old Testament Christianity are also promote extremism when taken as intended.

Its all about interpretation, which is something theologians debate about constantly.
Anyone living in Old Testament christianity needs to keep reading the rest of the Bible, to where Jesus declares His people are to no longer wage physical battle for the sake of His kingdom.
 
Anyone living in Old Testament christianity needs to keep reading the rest of the Bible, to where Jesus declares His people are to no longer wage physical battle for the sake of His kingdom.

That's your interpretation, is it not?
 
Its not even 'Demtards vs. Pubtards' anymore. Its about "wacky anti-American tards who open borders to anyone for their votes, while turning the country into a 3rd world ****-hole", vs. those who don't...

Throw in a thousand other wacky things, like boys and girls seen as one gender, letting males beat up girls in MMA and other sports, having "mostly peaceful" riots while burning, looting, shooting, killing cops and kids and receiving a nobel peace prize while doing so, etc.

One group are Americans, the other are a bunch of backward, bizarro-land water-heads. Its quite simple even a libturd can understand it.
What about the "pro life" crowd who refuse to follow basic practices to save thousands of lives?

You want an abortion? Can't have that you satanist! Think of the life you are taking!

Want me to wear a mask and social distance to save a life? Can't have that you anti freedom libtardzzzzzz. My body my choice!

Remember when conservatives stormed the Capitol and beat a cop to death with a flag pole? Good times. True Americans.

Or that time Lauren Boebart called Biden a pedo while her husband was flashing his penis to 12 year old girls
 
Last edited:
I remember when the left developed and delivered (ad nauseum) a narrative claiming that a DC policeman died shortly after the January 6, 2021 violence at the Capital, because someone allegedly struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher.

It was repeated on every mainstream media outlet, over, and over, and over. It was repeated as if it was fact.

EVERY mainstream print, radio and TV "news" outlet reported that officer Brian D. Sicknick was "killed by armed protesters who struck him on the head with a fire extinguisher". They all used the same terminology (I have my own thoughts who provided that terminology to the so-called news).

Always quick to report any story that creates the perception that conservatives victimize others, it was reported "Brian Sicknick was the capital police officer killed by rioters with a fire extinguisher. The other four were domestic terrorists in the act of trying to overthrow the United States of America and keep a fascist dictator in power. Their names are Irrelevant."

The narrative: "Sicknick was beat to death".

House of Representatives managers for former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial wrote in their trial memorandum on February 2, "The insurrectionists killed a Capitol Police officer by striking him in the head with a fire extinguisher."

The news was all over this. Take, for example, stories by the New York Times. There is a still-available report entitled, “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” There was another Times report from the same day, entitled, “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob”. The Times asserted: "On Wednesday, pro-Trump supporters attacked that citadel of democracy [i.e., the Capitol], overpowered Mr. Sicknick, 42, and struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials. With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support. He died on Thursday evening." Facebook posts linking a fire extinguisher to Officers Sicknick’s death received more than a million interactions in roughly three weeks time.

The problem with this narrative is that Brian Sicknick was NEVER struck by a fire extinguisher.

The problem with this narrative is that Brian Sicknick NEVER had a bloody gash in his head.

The problem with this narrative is that it NEVER happened.

The apparent reality: Brian Sicknick apparently died of (what may have been) an unrelated stroke. That he died should be a sufficient tragedy. Most would argue that there is no need to create a false narrative around this. Most would argue that doing so is nothing more than a vulture-like attempt to use a death to foster your cause - especially when it is not true. Lets pick at the bones and see what we can come up with.

But not to the media, nor the leftist Government. To the media and the the leftist Government it was merely an opportunity. It should be of no concern to them that if and when they retract it, no one will read it, the damage will be done and the skinny leg jean wearing NPR listeners will have yet another "hate the fascist conservatives" arrow in their quiver.

But wait, we were repeatedly told that he was beaten, by both the media and Government officials. We were told that medical examiner's report on the cause of Sicknick's death would be released. We were told by a spokesperson for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner "The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner will release the cause and manner of death when this information is available". We were told that the Metropolitan Police Department told Newsweek that the department is actively investigating the officer's death.

Within the last week a law enforcement official told the Associated Press that evidence suggests Officer Sicknick ingested a chemical — "which may have contributed to his death". It is believed that this chemical was a pepper spray or bear spray. Shame on the bastards that sprayed him. But it was reported on Feb. 2 that medical examiners did not find signs that Officer Sicknick had sustained any blunt force trauma. On Feb. 22, Gladys Sicknick, the officer’s mother, denied that Brian Sicknick was struck in the head. "He wasn’t hit on the head no. We think he had a stroke, but we don’t know anything for sure," she said.

Brian Sicknick died on January 7th, and prior to that he had multiple conversations with family members. If anything was wrong with Mr. Sicknick it was not evident to those family members. His brother, Ken Sicknick, said on January 8th" "He (Brian) texted me last night (January 6th) and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape." The family later received word that Brian Sicknick had a blood clot and had had a stroke and a ventilator was keeping him alive (he later died).

Surely the media would scramble to quickly correct their "mistake". To the media, truth is like mother's milk - isn't it?

Not so fast.

About 6 weeks after his death, the New York Times quietly “updated” its report, published over a month earlier, asserting that Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick had been killed by being struck with a fire extinguisher during the January 6 riot. According to Times, “new information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.” Could it be that the allegations in the article entitled, “Capitol Police Officer Dies from Injuries in Pro-Trump Rampage.” and “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob” were not accurate? It couldn't be that our trusted media failed to research and verify facts prior to reporting something as being factual, could it?

And yet, what the Times referred to as “new information” actually began emerging on January 8th. It seems odd that something can be reported immediately, but that it would take six weeks for the "new information" on this seemingly emergent story to come out, could it, after all - in the media game "time is of the essence". If so, that might suggest the existence of some sort of Government and media shared hidden agenda, that only information that SUPPORTED the narrative should be reported as quickly as possible. Hey, that can't be right.

To the best of my knowledge, the autopsy results have not been released and there is no official cause of death, other than he succumbed to a stroke.

The Times recently reported "Medical experts have said he (Brian Sicknick) did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official." And yet on February 17th, when activist Candace Owens wrote on Facebook "No police officer was ever beaten to death with a fire extinguisher," it was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.

Follow the narrative, even when it is not true.

The narrative was TO CREATE FEAR that conservatives victimize others and that if the crazed lunatics can kill a police officer, they can kill you as well. And if they are such an eminent danger to life and liberty, the Government MUST due something to suppress and control them.

Meaning, take away their civil liberties; starting with those of the insurrectionist. Since they cannot be identified, insurrectionist must mean "anyone who voted for Donald Trump", and there are initiatives (one at least which is linked to media darling AOC) to track people who voted for Trump. Seriously. See how all of this works?

And yet, the facts to date show that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the basis for their fear-mongering.

The real leftist mantra should be "Never overlook the opportunity to leverage a tragic event to further your cause, even if the facts do not support it".

As to the news - it isn't - it is creative writing. It simply and mindlessly follows the narratives provided to them, so long as they have a leftist twist.

No need for the facts. Move along.

No word yet on whether the Biden administration will now try to outlaw fire extinguishers or bear spray.

As a fact check, there is most certainly factual evidence showing some thug using a flag pole as a weapon to strike an officer. The man was identified as Peter Stager, who remains in custody without bail. Officer Mike Fanone had a heart attack while he was being pummeled, but fortunately he did not die.
 
Last edited:
What about the "pro life" crowd who refuse to follow basic practices to save thousands of lives?

You want an abortion? Can't have that you satanist! Think of the life you are taking!

Want me to wear a mask and social distance to save a life? Can't have that you anti freedom libtardzzzzzz. My body my choice!

Remember when conservatives stormed the Capitol and beat a cop to death with a flag pole? Good times. True Americans.

Or that time Lauren Boebart called Biden a pedo while her husband was flashing his penis to 12 year old girls
show me where even one woman has been denied a abortion?


how many cops have been killed in the name of black lives matter and yet blm is hailed as heroic.

if i remember correctly you are a big supporter of blm-eh?
 
“Pro Life” as a term gets equated by some (Jigz apparently?) that they are “pro life” for all situations, always. The problem there is a false equivalence. Are pro choice always for having a choice? Would they not prefer to limit choice for someone who wants to rape another person? The situational application of “Pro Life” is often just anti murder. For instance, I’ve personally spoken with one person in the last few years who claims pro life or anti-abortion stance, but extends it to all circumstances - ie killing is never right (even in application of justice system, self defense, etc). The others I’ve spoke with on the topic who would be labeled pro life are claiming anti-murder if you ask the questions. It can be helpful to get clarification instead of painting the whole crowd as hypocritical idiots. Listening to people justify the other side can be more interesting and revealing when you ask probing and clarifying questions.

Even in the case of rape the baby could be put up for adoption. Abortion would add another layer of trauma for the mother that seems to never get mentioned but is acknowledged heavily by a lot of women post abortion. A life is a life and it must be cherished in all circumstances.
 
Even in the case of rape the baby could be put up for adoption. Abortion would add another layer of trauma for the mother that seems to never get mentioned but is acknowledged heavily by a lot of women post abortion. A life is a life and it must be cherished in all circumstances.

I’m curious to know the percentage of abortions carried out by liberals. Kind of wondering if abortions maybe saving us from an even greater liberal infestation.
 
I’m curious to know the percentage of abortions carried out by liberals. Kind of wondering if abortions maybe saving us from an even greater liberal infestation.
while the recidivism rate among women having abortions is high-about half of all abortions is by a woman who has already had a abortion--the rate isn't near as high as recidivism rate of criminals 64%.....and yes, my bet is liberals are top of the list of both abortions and criminals.

any takers?
 
while the recidivism rate among women having abortions is high-about half of all abortions is by a woman who has already had a abortion--the rate isn't near as high as recidivism rate of criminals 64%.....and yes, my bet is liberals are top of the list of both abortions and criminals.

any takers?

I wouldn’t doubt it. They seem to not value the family unit or others lives over having their “choices” and feelings not hurt
 
So based on the assumption that liberals are the ones getting abortions, can we not agree that them self eliminating their offspring infected with their disease is not such a bad thing?
 
So based on the assumption that liberals are the ones getting abortions, can we not agree that them self eliminating their offspring infected with their disease is not such a bad thing?
For many having a faith life, I would expect the answer would be no.
 
show me where even one woman has been denied a abortion?


how many cops have been killed in the name of black lives matter and yet blm is hailed as heroic.

if i remember correctly you are a big supporter of blm-eh?
Invalid Link Removed
 
“Pro Life” as a term gets equated by some (Jigz apparently?) that they are “pro life” for all situations, always. The problem there is a false equivalence. Are pro choice always for having a choice? Would they not prefer to limit choice for someone who wants to rape another person? The situational application of “Pro Life” is often just anti murder. For instance, I’ve personally spoken with one person in the last few years who claims pro life or anti-abortion stance, but extends it to all circumstances - ie killing is never right (even in application of justice system, self defense, etc). The others I’ve spoke with on the topic who would be labeled pro life are claiming anti-murder if you ask the questions. It can be helpful to get clarification instead of painting the whole crowd as hypocritical idiots. Listening to people justify the other side can be more interesting and revealing when you ask probing and clarifying questions.
If someone dies due to your negligence, you should be held culpable. How is knowing that 550,000 Americans are dead because of a virus, and still protesting protective measures and spitting on people you disagree with NOT considered taking a life?

If you draw an arbitrary line at abortions, then you should be mad at everyone who knowingly flouts rules of a deadly illness. Period.
 
No. That never actually happened, so no, I don't remember it. Where do you even get your information????
Should we watch the video, perhaps?

Invalid Link Removed

Look at all these patriots
 
Even in the case of rape the baby could be put up for adoption. Abortion would add another layer of trauma for the mother that seems to never get mentioned but is acknowledged heavily by a lot of women post abortion. A life is a life and it must be cherished in all circumstances.
Slightly hypocritical given your stance on Covid, don't you think?

A life is a life, except when you're asked to do something, then its "but mah freedumbzzz"
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
Should we watch the video, perhaps?

Invalid Link Removed

Look at all these patriots

YOU said the rioters beat a cop to death with a flag pole. Death is a pretty definitive yes/no to prove. And NO... a cop was not beaten to death with a flag pole at the Capitol riots. Period.

How many people do you think really died in the Capitol riot????
 
Even in the case of rape the baby could be put up for adoption. Abortion would add another layer of trauma for the mother that seems to never get mentioned but is acknowledged heavily by a lot of women post abortion. A life is a life and it must be cherished in all circumstances.

You act like giving birth is a completely risk free, pleasant process. Why should a woman have to put herself through that when she was raped? You really think she should be forced to birth her rapist’s child?
 
Slightly hypocritical given your stance on Covid, don't you think?

A life is a life, except when you're asked to do something, then its "but mah freedumbzzz"

Man, you try so hard. Abortion is 100% taking a life and the other is speculative at best saving a life. Masks, or whatever you’ve convinced yourself of, don’t save lives...you will have to find another way to go virtue signal.
 
You act like giving birth is a completely risk free, pleasant process. Why should a woman have to put herself through that when she was raped? You really think she should be forced to birth her rapist’s child?

Typical liberal putting “feelings” over another’s life. It’s actually sad your mind thinks that way. “There has been a rape, let’s commit a murder so there isn’t any more physical pain”

I didn’t “act” like anything. Get out of here with this weak argument.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top