Can any of the so-called "pro-life" types even support this??

1. 63

   lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

   Israel Paves the Way for Killing by Remote Control
   
   Thursday, 15 July 2010 07:23
   
   
   "Spot and Shoot, as it is called by the Israeli military, may look like a video game but the figures on the screen are real people – Palestinians in Gaza – who can be killed with the press of a button on the joystick."

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Is that the whole story?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Read the link provided by Sabreblade above and tell us how that squares with your pro life position.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I read another link before that one was posted. I wonder if anyone else read all of it.
            
            They are only used on anyone who does suspicios things or tries to go over the fence. The order to shoot only comes from a commander.
            
            It is for border protection more than anything else.

            replyreport
   2. 60

      double_frickposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      umm...
      #1 spot on for the saboh-like thread concerning abortion...that has...nothing to do with abortion. LMFAO!!!! <3
      
      aaanad...
      i
      m a bit buzzed...so...wait...is there an official link for remote-control-killing?@>?!?!?!

      replyreport
   3. 51

      leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Of course war is wrong, but countries don't have the option to just turn the other cheek. The very purpose of government is to provide security, so what are Israeli's to do when Palestinians launch rocket attacks upon innocent people from the back of a pick up truck in the middle of an innocent population?

      replyreport
   4. 51

      leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      By the way, President Obama is doing the very same thing in Pakistan, yet I don't see you criticising him.

      replyreport
2. 64

   sabrebIadeposted 7 years ago

   http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll … 29834/1002

   replyreport
3. 95

   habeeposted 7 years ago

   So...if you're pro-life, you're a warmonger?? What did I miss?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      this forum is a response to a forum by Sab Oh that accused people who are pro-abortion of being pro-women-getting-the-crap-kicked-out-of-them-when-they're-pregnant-and-then-being-able-to-sue-for-damages-because-of-the-miscarriaged-fetus.
      
      So... i dunno... whatever.
      
      People fight over this stuff when the answer to these questions are already known - Don't initiate an act of aggression against another, and that wombs don't have to be the only place a fetus can live (it's just that we haven't found better locations).

      replyreport
      1. 54

         Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "a forum by Sab Oh that accused people who are pro-abortion of being pro-women-getting-the-crap-kicked-out-of-them-when-they're-pregnant-and-then-being-able-to-sue-for-damages-because-of-the-miscarriaged-fetus."
         
         NO, that is not true.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Keep saying that. Maybe people will start to believe you.

            replyreport
            1. 54

               Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               YOU agreed that you finally understood what the title of that thread referred to, remember?

               replyreport
      2. 54

         Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "and that wombs don't have to be the only place a fetus can live (it's just that we haven't found better locations)."
         
         So, this is your pet theory now? I notice you've repeated this many times now.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      All the drama and rhetoric between pro-life and war-mongrel.

      replyreport
4. 96

   wildernessposted 7 years ago

   Did the US get drone technology from Israel or the other way around?
   
   I have read of US weapons, both remote controlled and robotic, that make those machine guns look like popguns shooting ping pong balls.  And thats a scary thought; an autonomous robot with the firepower of a tank, coming over the hill.

   replyreport
5. 63

   lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

   Any response to the article?
   
   If you support Israel...and OUR use of remote-controlled killing, how are you pro-life?

   replyreport
6. 69

   TMMasonposted 7 years ago

   I say we buy thousands of those for our own southern border.
   
   I wil plug it right into my X-Box 360... I bet we could sell millions of subscriptions to it like an X-Box live game.
   
   Hey Chris, your buddy Joe Arpaio just got himself a big mounted 50 cal for his sheriffs deputies. I bet your just thrilled about that.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      He is also not pro-life.
      
      Some people like to use sanctimonious talk about how precious a life is, until it's one they don't like!
      Then it's perfectly all right to blow them away!
      
      The point I am making is this:  This POV is not pro-life, it is anti-abortion.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         The article has nothing to do with being pro-life or not, that is just your convoluted intellectual understanding of the two, as twisted by your leant leftist indoctrination and biased.
         
         A unborn child is not pointing an AK47 at any Jew that I know of.
         
         So to try to equate the two just proves once again what I say all the time... "leant leftist liberal progressive democrats can do nothing more than equate and justify, to support thier opinions".
         
         Nice fishing expedition though chrs.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Congrats on the 3.  Keep it up and someday you'll see double digits.

            replyreport
            1. 69

               TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Been there done that muliple times, Ron.
               
               Pay attention, you'd know that.
               
               Nice of you to challenge the statement... just like a leant leftist you run straight to insults.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Ummmmm, you said something that needed challenging?  YOU said something that wasn't obviously ludicrous?  I'll scan up and get back to you.

                  replyreport
7. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

   ooooooooo, here's a good one.  I've never heard the term "leant leftist" before, you're the only person I've ever known who uses it.  I just assumed it was one of your many typos, but out of curiosity I googled it.
   
   Do you know how to google?  If not, have someone google "leant leftist" for you and tell me what you see.
   
   I'm willing to bet it's your greatest achievement to date.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

   OK, I've finished scanning and I can't see any posts where you tried to make a point.  What exactly would you like me to challenge?

   replyreport
9. 44

   sexe grilposted 7 years ago

   go  golgoe

   replyreport
10. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    He's justifying killing.
    Except when he doesn't approve.
    
    Same old same ol same old.....do as I say, not as I do.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       The article has nothing to do with being pro-life or not, that is just your convoluted intellectual understanding of the two, as twisted by your leant leftist indoctrination and biased.
       
       An unborn child is not pointing an AK47 at any Jew that I know of.
       
       So to try to equate the two just proves once again what I say all the time... "leant leftist liberal progressive democrats can do nothing more than equate and justify, to support thier opinions".
       
       Shall I repeat it again...
       
       And I am not justifying anything more than Israel using a technology which saves the lives of its own soldiers by removing them from the situation.
       
       I think it is excellent and we should employ it on the borders.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It kills people. That is murder. That is what YOU call abortion. How come Israel can do it and I can't?

          replyreport
          1. 69

             TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Abortion and war are two very different things, chrs.
             
             You can equate the two all you want, that is all the leant left ever does, but it doesn't make them similar.
             
             Israel has the right to defend itself from a known and armed enemy.
             
             How is the baby harming the mother again?... Cramping her partying?... Making her feel unsexy?... oh... Making her fat?...

             replyreport
11. 60

    KFlippinposted 7 years ago

    What a very odd and forced premise for a discussion of abortion.....and so far as I know a woman is free to 'murder' her unborn child or her next door neighbor, she just has to live with the consequences.

    replyreport
12. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Killing is killing mason.
    
    Either you allow for it or you don't.
    You do if you agree with it. But you want to ban it if you don't.
    
    Because a woman has the right to command her own destiny just as much as any country has a right to defend itself.
    
    Palestine is not armed. For god sakes they're not getting food, medicine or shelter. They are living in sewer water. They are being starved out and allowed to die. Not because of a military threat, but because of racial hatred on the part of Netanyahoo and the Zionists.
    
    Collateral damage is bound to happen with that video-kill...will that be justified too?
    
    When a woman gets pregnant it is no business of yours. Sorry you don't like it, but that is called America. The Taliban would force a woman to give birth against her will....that's not how we do things here.
    
    "How is the baby harming the mother again?... Cramping her partying?... Making her feel unsexy?... oh... Making her fat?..."
    
    That is the most sexist thing you could say. You act as if it's no big deal to a woman. You couldn't be more wrong. Thanks for giving women no credit. Thanks for minimizing a torturous decision. Thanks for de-humanizing us just as you de-humanize the Palestinians. THEY don't deserve to live free, and neither do we huh?
    
    Tell you what, I have a sure-fire way to end abortions...UW mentioned it once. Force all men to have vasectomies....voila! No more abortions EVER!

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Oh... yes, the Zionists.
       
       Umhum...
       
       We could stop most abortions if we simply taught our daughters morals. Might be alot easier and better for all in the end.

       replyreport
13. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Morals...like stealing land and bulldozing olive orchards?
    Like throwing little kids out in the street and burning them with white phosphorous?
    Killing live people as if in a video game? Those kind of morals?
    
    I'd say on a scale of one to ten...abortion is a zero compared to them.
    
    You live by your morals and let others live by theirs....how about that?
    Everyone will face the consequence of their actions...we don't need you to be judge and jury, thank you.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       And you do not get to dictate the terms either chrs... so chill out and take a breath.
       
       Besides... very soon the Progressive Movement we be dead in American politics, and we can go back to our nice ancestral Christian morallity.
       
       Okay... relax.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Ahahahha.....The crusades and the Spanish Inquisition!!!
          
          
          Oh, what nice ancestry!!!
          
          If any of you even followed Jesus Christ, this world would be transformed. As it is, you like to talk the talk, but no one ever walks the walk....
          
          The ones who do walk the walk seem to be very quite about it. Like they would NEVER spread the word through a Crystal Cathedral....what pomposity!!!
          
          Some Catholics are public about their walk. They are anti-abortion, but they are anti war, anti death penalty and anti poverty as well. That is walking the walk!
          
          People who really have spiritual grounding are obvious...as the old saying goes, Actions speak louder than words.
          
          People who say "you have no right to an abortion, but we have the right to kill" are phony's, IMO.

          replyreport
14. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Actually, as regards to this country, I should have said, the massacre of the Native Americans and slavery....
    Both justified with Christianity, yet as far removed from Jesus as you can get!
    
    
    
    The big thing that's missing in this world is Agape Love. Anyone who lives by that can claim to be a Christian, that's what I think.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       If you were half as intteligent as you think you are, you would see the idiocy in even attempting to equate, Abortion, to War... but like all leftists you are so traped in your, "equate and justify", routine, that it never dawns on you how lost your words sound.
       
       I am actually of the opinion you are an intelligent individual... but you need to realize you cannot equate all things to all other things... it just is not acceptable and does nothing to win a debate.

       replyreport
15. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    I'm equating a living breathing human being that is killed versus a fetus in a woman's womb not yet born.
    
    And I'm equating my right to control my own life versus your idea that somehow you have the right to decide my fate for me.
    
    Birth by order of the state and Killing by order of the state....sounds so very Draconian to me.
    
    That is a world I want no part of.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       So your conceding that an enchoate fetus is alive and human.
       
       Thank you, finally.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       Wasn't the fate of over 46 million unborn babies decided by the Roe V Wade decision?
       
       We say we don't want our fate decided for us then we spout these arguments where someone's fate was decided for them. 
       
       Killing in war time and killing during peaceful times is killing. The difference is that in war time, your enemies are trying to kill you also.
       
       The unborn babies are not attempting to harm anyone. My opinion is that probably about 90% of abortions are done so out of vanity. (just a guess on my part)

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Your assertion wrt "vanity" is dubious. However, setting aside any cases involving vanity, whatever that means, how do you feel about pregnancies that result from rape or incest, those in which the life of the mother is severely endangered, those which prenatal tests show that the baby will be born with a very severe condition and those where the baby would be born into circumstances which would not provide adequate nutrition and care? These reasons have nothing do do with "vanity."

          replyreport
          1. 0

             SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             How many of the 46 million aborted were conceived due to rape? Incest? Born into poverty?
             
             Do doctors know everything? Can they be 100% sure that a child will be defective?
             
             I stated in an earlier comment that ectopic pregnancies should be aborted. I also stated that there may be other circumstances that I am not aware of in which the baby should be aborted.
             
             Sometimes I do not know exactly where I stand concerning issues. I do know that there was not 46 millions pregnancies over the last few decades due to rape, incest, birth defects, etc. . .
             
             I also know that none of those aborted took up a weapon and tried to harm it's host.

             replyreport
16. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Noooooo, "a fetus in a woman's womb not yet born."  Not yet alive and human. My decision to make.
    
    Wheras, some people seem to think that an already born child is expendable....for the right "cause" that is.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "I'm equating a living breathing human being that is killed versus a fetus in a woman's womb not yet born."
       
       You also asked me earlier what was the difference, how could I agree with one and not the other.
       
       Your equating them, not I.
       
       in your humble opinion above you have conceded they are equal in thier right to exist, and to save. So I will trade you your palistinians, for the innocents.
       
       See... I am agreeing with you... our side will tell Isreal to knock it off, and your side can agree to outlaw Abortion.
       
       Deal.

       replyreport
17. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "In your humble opinion above you have conceded they are equal in thier right to exist, and to save. So I will trade you your palistinians, for the innocents."
    
    WRONG!
    
    I think YOU are saying that only the fetus deserves to be saved....you seem to be saying that the Palestinian kid can be killed, no problem.
    
    Same as "your side" wants to force women to give birth, and then abandons them! Wasn't slamming it to the "Welfare Queens" one of your sides heros' main clame to fame?
    
    You know, Uncle Ronnie...the one who "cut their allowance".

    replyreport
18. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "So I will trade you your palistinians, for the innocents."
    
    Palestinian babies aren't innocents?

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       As innocent as the ones you abort.
       
       I am trading you the lives of terrorist, of whom many, will undoubtedly kill again.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          And you know the Palestinians are all terrorists how, exactly?

          replyreport
          1. 51

             leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             When someone punches you in the face, for whatever reason, you can assume they mean you harm, still it's only a punch, you can forgive them. When someone pulls a gun or a knife on you, you can assume they intend to kill you, for whatever reason. You have two choices, wait to see if they will carry out the threat, or strike first.
             
             Whether you consider the Palestinians terrorists or not is not the issue, the issue is threats against an innocent population and how to address those threats.

             replyreport
             1. 65

                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The threat by Israel against the Palestinians as a result of the blockade and it's barbarous invasion has been much greater than the reverse.

                replyreport
                1. 51

                   leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Ok, so you're saying the Palestinians are justified in launching rockets into innocent civilians because of Israeli government policy decisions, that may or may not be justified?

                   replyreport
                   1. 65

                      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      That's not at all what I said.

                      replyreport
                      1. 51

                         leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Pardon me, that seemed to be what you implied by your following response:
                         
                         
                         
                         or at least that's the implication I took from your statement.

                         replyreport
             2. 86

                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                When a person pulls a knife on me, I'm not going to drop a cluster bomb on his neighborhood. That's the difference.

                replyreport
                1. 54

                   Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   If thousands of people pulled knives on thousands of your family members and used them when they could - and if you had a cluster bomb - you'd sure as heck use it if you could.

                   replyreport
                2. 51

                   leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Cluster bombs should be outlawed. As I said war is wrong and these things have a way of escalating out of control. Apparently you think it's wrong for Israel to use tactics that kill innocent bystanders, but you don't have a problem with Palestinians doing the same thing. My view is their both wrong. Violence will only beget violence. It's time both sides recognize the realities of the situation and engage in real negotiations for a final solution. That won't happen until the violence ends.

                   replyreport
          2. 69

             TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I am sure they aren't shooting the innnocent ones... as are all unborn children. But if you think Israel is deliberately targeting the innocent like the Left does... then I agree it must stop Jeff.
             
             See, I do not operate on the assumption that Israel is just blasting into crowds of innocent palistinians... unlike the indescriminate killing the palistinians are engaged in.
             
             Unlike the lefts assualt on the innocent and defensless unborn.
             
             See how that is...

             replyreport
19. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    But wait....I thought we were all born in sin. All fall short of the glory. Don't you want to leave this world and get back to Heaven?
    
    Why the big push to be born into this world?
    
    And the targets of video-kill are Palestinians....no mention of terrorists, or any of that...just like Operation Cast Lead...the targets were civilians. Racial hate. Same as this spot and shoot. IMO
    
    So, I geuss if Iran had such a program aimed at Israel, you would have no problem with it? Seeing as how Israel threatens to bomb them. And Israel has nukes. Iran should have their own spot and shoot, huh?

    replyreport
20. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       And when good men do nothing, evil prevails.
       
       I will take the good, doing some good and having some faults happen.
       
       Then to do nothing at all.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Good luck on the whole "doing good" thing. I hope you can.

          replyreport
21. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Again...most arguing in favor of banning abortion are male...
    
    It is the choice of the woman and her legal right to do with her body what she wishes....

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       As a male I resent the implication that my entire gender is the type of dim-witted neanderthal thug that would deny a woman the right to make her own healthcare and other life decisions.
       
       Now if you had stated (more accurately) that those trying to deny your rights are male, unemployed highschool dropouts who have time in their empty lives to clog internet forums with their ridiculous lies...
       
       I could be on board with that.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       With an unwanted child conceived by consent I would argue that the man involved should also have some rights - or isn't it a child of two parents? 
       
       The womans rights to her body should have been invoked the first time she opened her legs to the situation.  Other than that I can agree with everything you ever say in these forums, it is actually quite exciting to disagree with you at last

       replyreport
    3. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       All you woman seem to forget that the child is as much the right of the father's to protect and raise, as it is the right of the mother's to kill and throw away.
       
       You tell me which one is of a higher moral value and imperitive.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          You tell me who has to be pregnant.

          replyreport
22. 60

    KFlippinposted 7 years ago

    Only dim-witted Neanderthal thugs, male and female alike, would think that the child in a woman's belly was an inanimate thing that is just a by-product of rightful lust and no harm/no foul to abort that thing at will and whim. 
    
    Making abortion a non-event, de-humanizing the unborn child, is something that has, or will, lead to more irresponsible behavior, it's hard to believe the violation of their civil rights is of zero importance to some. I doubt any proponent of right-to-life would argue that abortions necessary for the emotional or physical survival of the Mom is wrong - that's a bogus distracting argument. 
    
    A woman has the right to do with her body as she chooses, without a doubt, and the current sex ed being planned for kindergarten and on up will do nothing but serve to reinforce that thinking to the extreme, in our young boys and girls. It's as though some elements of our society are actually embracing and encouraging the degradation of morals in America.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       china manposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       No - the degradation of morals is totally down to the religionists with their transparent fabrications.
       
       And why the emotional fuss about a foetus, it has been within the law for most of recorded time that children are the property of their parents, we like to say responsibility but property is more accurate.  A child has always had less rights than an adult, babies even less.  The whole double standards and hyposcrisy of the situation is laughable - you get all het up about a foetus that doesn't even know it exists yet, but hey, lets bomb Iraq and kill a whole load of people we don't know.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          KFlippinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Gee, I'll give that some thought......okay, tried to seriously consider this war vs babies premise, couldn't get there, kept recalling all those innocent and wholly unaware people that died in 911. 
          
          So, IMO, I think using the emotional topic of abortion as a means to bring up acts of war or defense of any sort by any country is an effort.....that is fairly pathetic and desperate and indeed continues to be laughable as I've followed the discussion here......as is stating that religionists are to blame for moral degradation in society, just doesn't make much sense, and sounds like a transparent fabrication, an illusion, that won't fly or flip very far.
          
          Also, religionists are typically extremists, radical Islam followers are a superb example, and I really don't think you'd say that Muslim culture is morally degraded -- but then they do kill on a whim, so, hmmm, perhaps you may have a valid argument.

          replyreport
    2. 60

       Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       At the stage that abortions are legal, there is in fact no child in a woman's belly.
       
       Repeating that lie ad nauseum doesn't make it fact.
       
       Your strawman arguments regarding lusts and whims and other BS are equally nonsensical.

       replyreport
23. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Yes, it all boils down to controlling women...because they don't like us having sex!
    
    The Puritan ethic.
    
    Cause all through-out history, women have decided when and where they would give birth...as does Mother Nature...but they don't call that murder...a mis-carriage is the end of a pregnancy.
    
    So, if Mother Nature can do it, then Mothers can do it, and it's all a natural part of existence.
    
    Sorry if you don't like it, so maybe you ought to tell the boys to keep it in their pants?
    That would solve it, you know.
    
    Preach your morals to them. Don't let them have sex until they are working and ready to support a child.
    
    We'll have a morality board for men to go in front of before they even think of having sex.
    
    Works for me! Time the males takes the heat and responsability for a change....since you want to control women...control your own selves!
    
    If you mess up....forced vasectomie.How's that? We will make your reproductive decisions for you.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "Yes, it all boils down to controlling women...because they don't like us having sex!"
       
       Certainly NOT. What it "boils down to" is a sincere concern for the lives of unborn children.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Not a good liar TK. Please stop attacking women's rights under the law.
          
          Thank you.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             You'd think with so much practice....

             replyreport
       2. 86

          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "What it "boils down to" is a sincere concern for the lives of unborn children." And only the unborn ones, in most cases. Once the kid comes out, the kid (and the mom) are on their own.
          
          Perhaps the anti-choice crowd would do better to agitate for postnatal support for young moms who might not be ready, emotionally, financially, whatever, for the experience of motherhood, instead of saying, "Tough luck for you; shoulda kept your legs together."

          replyreport
          1. 0

             SirDentposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             http://www.youngmommies.com/
             
             http://new-moms-page.app-sl-1.aidpage.c … moms-page/
             
             http://www.nls.gov/offices/pih/other/sch/about.cfm
             
             http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc/c … %20Mothers
             
             http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/so … 12/15/2121
             
             Just a few off the first page of a google search on Help for young mothers

             replyreport
             1. 86

                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Wow, did you read any of those pages, or did you just throw up some links to see what sticks? I suggested that "Perhaps the anti-choice crowd would do better to agitate for postnatal support for young moms."
                
                To demonstrate that they do, apparently, you liked to a bunch of sites that support young moms. I'm glad that they're out there, but most of them are run by the loathsome godless pro-choice crowd.
                
                From youngmommies.com:
                
                "About us... in detail
                
                    * We support choice! (emphasis mine)
                    * We support education!
                    * We celebrate diversity!
                    * Everyone is welcome!
                    * Supporting, not promoting!"
                
                www.nls.gov is a government site, not an anti-choice site.
                
                www.sccgov.org has a prominent link to planned parenthood; obviously they are pro-choice.
                
                The Gotham Gazette is a newspaper. The organization highlighted in the article, the Nurse-Family Partnership, is a publicly funded organization, not an anti-choice one.
                
                But, the new moms page does say "I do not support any ads in the sidebars that are for abortions." Well done, you found the anti-choice website that tries to help young moms.
                
                I wish more folks who spend their time, energy, and money trying to stamp out abortion would spend some of their time, energy, and money to do things like the lady who runs the New Moms Page you linked to, that is, to support the mom and the kid after the kid stops being a fetus. I would respect them a lot more.
                
                It still seems that most of the support for young moms and their newborn kids comes from the folks who support a woman's right to choose. Interesting, that.

                replyreport
    2. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "So, if Mother Nature can do it, then Mothers can do it, and it's all a natural part of existence."
       
       
       So, because people also die of natural causes, murder should be legal? I don't think you'd want to live in a society that put that theory into universal effect.

       replyreport
       1. 63

          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Murder IS legal. It's called war. It's just male-approved.
          
          Think about it...of all the forms of ending life....depleted uranium, white phosphorous, bombs, missiles, starvation,poison, dehydration, disease....etc
          The one you focus on involves me making my own decision about my own life.....misogyny???

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             "Murder IS legal. It's called war. It's just male-approved."
             
             War is not the same as murder, although obviously people die in war. It is more akin to a police officer shooting and killing a dangerous criminal for the good of society. It is not male or female. The unborn, on the other hand, are not dangerous criminals and they are not the enemy. To look upon them as such is not only inhumane but ultimately nihilistic.
             
             
             "Think about it...of all the forms of ending life....depleted uranium, white phosphorous, bombs, missiles, starvation,poison, dehydration, disease....etc
             The one you focus on involves me making my own decision about my own life.....misogyny???"
             
             Not the slightest bit of misogyny. If it were about one person's life and one person alone (male or female) that would be one thing, but it's NOT. The question we are focusing on here is the one where the most innocent and vulnerable are deliberately killed. A very, very, very important distinction.

             replyreport
             1. 65

                Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "War isn't the same as murder."
                
                Neither is abortion.

                replyreport
                1. 54

                   Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Read the whole post.

                   replyreport
       2. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "Murder should be legal?"
          
          Are you equating abortion with murder? You know better than that!
          Murder is a legal term which doesn't include abortion nor war.

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Read the whole post.

             replyreport
24. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Sab Oh said:
    "If it were about one person's life and one person alone (male or female) that would be one thing, but it's NOT. The one we are focusing on here is the one were the most innocent and vulnerable are deliberately killed. A very, very, very important distinction."
    
    Am I misreading this or are you contradicting yourself in the same paragraph?
    First you say it is NOT about one person's life and one person alone.
    But the second sentence turns around and says "the ONE we are focusing on here is the ONE were the most innocent and vulnerable are deliberately killed."
    Forget the fact that that second sentence is a grammatical nightmare.
    
    Even if you extrapolate one woman's choice to all the other women everywhere who make the decision to have an abortion (which is their legal right), we're hardly talking mass "genocide." The world population is in no danger of being wiped out.
    Second, a fetus is NOT a person.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Did you read the article posted in the other thread?

       replyreport
25. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    But, the woman is carrying it. If a woman is determined to get an abortion, or cause herself to lose the fetus she will. Of course, in a relationship it should be discussed and decided upon together. However, no one can force a woman to give birth when she is determined not to.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       And if a woman is determined to do so, she can also kill her newborn baby. I don't suppose you would therefore just accept that behavior.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Of course not, once that child is outside of the womb everything changes. Abortion of a fetus is legal.

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             So, until the very moment the baby is born who advocate killing him or her at the mother's discretion? Up until the very last moment?

             replyreport
26. 69

    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    It is simply sad that we even raise our daughters to believe a child is expendable in any way.
    
    Shows just how far our society has fallen that the mothers and women, would be the leaders of the charge to degrade human life in such a way.
    
    You would think women being the mothers of the world would see more clearly the babarity and bloodthirsty nature of such a thing.
    
    I am ashamed of my country for allowing such an all out slaughter of innocence and propagation of such a procedure as a means to solve any problem.
    
    Shame on all you women who support abortion except in the most severe cases. ie: rape, incest, life of the mother.
    
    And I hate to allow most of those.

    replyreport
27. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    A fetus is not a child...
    
    I do not support abortion, I support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Believe it or not, there is a difference. In a perfect world, I would hope there would be no reason for abortion, but that is never going to be.
    
    Women have always decided if and when they give birth, even before abortion was legal.

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       The only time there should be a choice for her, is if it risks her life, or is a product of rape or incest. But unfortunately a woman can kill a unborn baby for any reason.
       
       Do you support that?
       
       Don't you think the restrictions should be a lil more strict as to when it should be allowed?
       
       Or are you all for the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies for whatever the whims of the mather may be.

       replyreport
    2. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "A fetus is not a child..."
       
       Until what point, exactly?

       replyreport
28. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    I support women's choice...A fetus is not a child...
    
    Obviously you are not reading what I am writing. So I'll just let you and Sab Oh feel morally superior and quit responding to you.

    replyreport
29. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    "It is simply sad that we even raise our daughters to believe a child is expendable in any way."
    
    Our history is replete with children who were expendable.
    
    Native Americans...babies, mothers, pregnant women, whole masses of real live people.
    
    Africans..babies, mothers, pregnant women, whole masses of real live people.
    
    Now it's Palestinians...babies, mothers, pregnant women, whole masses of real live people.
    
    They are all expendable without a second thought if it suits an agenda.
    
    Anyone who supports Israel in the conflict...which is our whole friggin gvt., is supporting murder of babies, mothers, pregnant women, whole masses of people.
    
    Spare me the sanctimonious malarkey. You men support murder, you just want it on your terms.
    
    Ending a pregnancy is preventing a life, not taking it away once it's here. Which is the worse act?

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "Ending a pregnancy is preventing a life, not taking it away once it's here."
       
       And without believing this you can't support abortion, right?

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry your Supreme Court made a law that means women can choose to have an abortion. I understand that makes you very angry. You must really hate women. But attacking random people will not change that. Please stop attacking people TK Sensei.
          
          Thank you.

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             "Sorry your Supreme Court made a law that means women can choose to have an abortion."
             
             The courts do not make law in the US. You might find it interesting to study up on the form and function of government in my country.
             
             "You must really hate women."
             
             That is a horrible, ridiculous, and false thing to say. Please do not repeat such an offensive accusation.
             
             
             "But attacking random people will not change that"
             
             I'm "attacking" no one, as I've said many times now.

             replyreport
             1. 69

                TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You know how it is Sab...
                
                You confront them, the left, with the truth and it is hate. You refuse to agree with them, the left, and it is attacking.
                
                It is a sad thing.

                replyreport
                1. 54

                   Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   There is a clear pattern. Add to this the silly insults and equally silly "you are really someone else!" game that some seem obsessed with and it's no wonder so many discussions devolve into pointlessness.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Come in TK Sensei - you have got what you wanted - another pointless attack on women and some ill feeling generated - you live for this. Well done.
                      
                      Oh - sorry - Is "Sab Oh" your real name? How odd that you make exactly the same claims that TK Sensei made before It was banned.

                      replyreport
             2. 61

                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Yes you are attacking TK Sensei - we have all seen it. I understand how angry you are that the law allows women an abortion and there will be no more women die horribly after illegal abortions.
                
                You must really hate women to want to inflict the bad old days of no choice on them. Why is that TK Sensei?

                replyreport
          2. 51

             leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Just because something is a law, that doesn't make it right. It was once law for blacks to use separate facilities.
             Laws are made by people, and people are flawed, they make mistakes and consequently pass bad laws.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I understand - as a man - it must be very upsetting to you that a law was passed giving women control of their bodies. You must be very angry.

                replyreport
                1. 51

                   leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Nope, not angry at all. I believe everyone should have control over their own body, that includes the unborn which for some reason many believe don't have a say in what happens to their body.

                   replyreport
                   1. 81

                      Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      You are kidding right? An unborn has no control over their existence on any level. To think that they do dismisses science's understanding of the human reproductive system. Get real!

                      replyreport
                      1. 51

                         leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Neither does a newborn child, so should it be okay to kill them too? At what age would murder of babies be permissible? Is 2 years old a good cut off line (that's about the time they learn to say no)?

                         replyreport
30. 69

    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    The left is just so simple.
    
    And mark... why don't you produce some records of all those women who died in back alley abortions in the 19 and 20th centuries. I bet you don't find the masses of women killed, you and the left claim to know about.
    
    They just are not there... because it just did not occur on the massive scale you all like to whine about.
    
    Another exagerrated hunk of BS the Leant left throws around as fact.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Why is this a left/right political thing for you? Oh - yes - you do not understand basic biology and think this is a political decision. You must hate women's legal right to have control over their bodies and choose an abortion also. I see you are very angry - or is that just a right wing thing?
       
       History is not your strong point either I see. Forcing right wing irrational morals on people invariably ends in tears.

       replyreport
31. 54

    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Emotive, sexist, and dismissive nonsense is quickly taking the place of discussion on yet another thread...
    
    I guess some types think that sort of thing is 'clever' but it just leaves us again with anything but real discussion.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Please stop attacking me TK sensei.
       
       Thanks.

       replyreport
32. 54

    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Let's try again:
    
    If we could refrain from attempting to cut off discussion with "you hate you hateful hater!" and other such baseless claims we might manage to get back to the actual topic.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       What is the point TK Sensei? You have studiously avoided any and all points made. It is clear you have no medical or legal background and are incapable of demonstrating any reason for the law to be changed
       
       Other than - you don't like it that women are allowed an abortion. Fine - we got it. You have said so and accused any one who disagrees of being disgusting. Well done.
       
       Please stop attacking me TK Sensei.
       
       Thanks.

       replyreport
    2. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Thats what the left does, Sab... they cannot win, or defeat the truth, so they turn it into a lil kids name calling game.
       
       It is the Leant lerftist trick they all know and love.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Yes.

          replyreport
33. 65

    alternate poetposted 7 years ago

    OK - so TK/Saboh has been roundly defeated yet again in its attempt to defend ancient cant and modern hypocrisy.
    
    So nobody has answered the question posed earlier in this thread that the emotive language surrounding abortion issues comes from the same people who support killing people wholesale in other countries - for reasons based on lies and propaganda.
    
    Is one bunch of cells that has the possibility of developing into an American got more rights that a village full of people in Vietnam, or a surburb full of people in Baghdad, or a village in South America slaughtered by US backed mercenaries trying to destabilise left wing governments ?

    replyreport
34. 54

    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    Pointless relativism does nothing to advance discussion or consideration of any of the widely unrelated topics that it would mash together.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Especially when it demonstrates your hypocrisy and misogyny.

       replyreport
35. 54

    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    I think if we could all get away from the ridiculous notion of "winning" a discussion we might take one giant step closer to productive discussion with fewer insults and silly name-calling as exemplified directly above.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       By winning I was pointing out that you had run out of answers and any facts or even any reaoning and it was time to move over and let others carry on the discussion who had something to discuss.
       
       And I don't think your view that my point is pointless relativism.  I guess that is because you have no answer to the question of your hypocrisy?

       replyreport
       1. 54

          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          In other words you don't agree with me and therefore want me to shut up and go away, right? Come on man, we can do better.

          replyreport
          1. 65

             alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I did do better - I asked you a direct question, care to answer that?

             replyreport
             1. 54

                Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                What was your "direct question"?

                replyreport
    2. 92

       Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Like you and TM could possibly be involved in a "productive discussion."  LOL!  You guys rant against killing the unborn but don't give a big dog f--- about them after they have been delivered!

       replyreport
       1. 54

          Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          "You guys rant against killing the unborn but don't give a big dog f--- about them after they have been delivered! "
          
          I can't speak for anyone else but I for one find that accusation baseless and deeply offensive. Of course, it is just another attempt at changing the topic anyway...

          replyreport
          1. 92

             Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I take it you were against all the deaths caused by the "shock and awe" tactics used in Iraq?  If not, what were all of these deaths, not including those of our own countrymen, really for?

             replyreport
             1. 54

                Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                The deaths of civilians? Of course. No military force of this size and scope has ever made minimizing civilian casualities as much of a priority, but unfortunately war still inevitably results in such casualties. It is one of the most important reasons why going to war should never be taken lightly.

                replyreport
                1. 92

                   Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   And the answer to the question if all the deaths were worth it?  What did we gain by these deaths of innocents?

                   replyreport
                   1. 54

                      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      I believe there is another thread dedicated to that question, is there not?

                      replyreport
                      1. 92

                         Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         As usual, you do and say anything to keep from answering questions posed to you.  But I am glad you, TM, and certain others post on these forums because it tells me what not to believe.  If you guys are against something, I know it is a good thing.  The same if you support something. 
                         
                         So you guys do serve a good purpose here.  Not to mention the comedy relief you supply in abundance!

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            The humor found in the absurdity of their arguments is the only real reason I come here.  People who worship Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Joseph McCarthy while tring to make the case that Hitler was not the true champion of their cause...
                            
                            Well sir, that is damned funny stuff.

                            replyreport
                            1. 51

                               leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                               Hitler was a socialist progressive. He promoted social justice as well as national health care. He demonized the Jews, just as Obama is demonizing the fat cats and the right to pass his socialist agenda.

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                  
                                  
                                  And the hits just keep on coming.
                                  
                                  He believed in the racial superiority of Whitey (would have made a fine teabagger)
                                  
                                  He believed there was a military solution to problems with any national government that was an inconvenience to him -(Rush, Glenn, W....)
                                  
                                  He believed a woman's body was the property of, and subject to the laws of the state - Just like our far right.
                                  
                                  Thank you for the humorous attempt.
                                  
                                  More please.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 51

                                     leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                     The name of the party Hitler created for "change"
                                     
                                     National Socialist German Workers' Party--the Nazi party for short

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 60

                                        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                        "Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end."
                                        
                                        http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm
                                        
                                        How about the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?
                                        
                                        Are they Socialist? (or socailist leant leftists as defined by TMM)  Are they Libertarian?
                                        
                                        Thanks for the laughs.

                                        report
                                        1. 51

                                           leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                           I don't know I'm not familiar with that group.
                                           
                                           Another parallel with Hitler, Obama's foreign policy to restore America's standing in the world, like Hitler's restoration of prode in a defeated Germany.

                                           report
                                           1. 60

                                              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                              We were defeated?  Where?  Was there a signing ceremony on a railroad car somewhere?
                                              
                                              Obama is like Hitler because he wants the U.S. to resolve differences with other countries diplomatically and with mutual respect?
                                              
                                              Side-splitting stuff there dude.
                                              
                                              

                                              report
                               2. 92

                                  Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                  So you are okay with the "fat cats" controlling our economy and the wealth distribution?  The amount of money available to the rest of the country gets smaller each year!  Will it be okay when they have it all by manipulating our economy?
                                  
                                  As a farmer I can tell you this, they will one day control the food supply even more than they do now!  Will you want some of  their food then?  Or do they deserve it all because they are powerful enough to get it?  Raw, unregulated capitalism only has one result, a few individuals end up with everything.

                                  replyreport
                            2. 92

                               Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                               Me too, Ron!  To think these guys are serious is almost beyond words!  I purely love it when they post such ignorance and venom here.  It makes me proud to be against such people and their party!  It was worth putting Obama into office just to make these characters slobber and complain!

                               replyreport
                         2. 54

                            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            It would be great if you could manage to focus on the topic and not derail the thread into the personal. Maybe too late for this thread already.

                            replyreport
                         3. 54

                            Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            "As usual, you do and say anything to keep from answering questions posed to you."
                            
                            If you have a serious on-topic question, go ahead and ask.

                            replyreport
                            1. 92

                               Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                               Why, you certainly have no answers, no matter what the question!  But back on topic as you requested, do you think YOU should decide whether a woman should have an abortion or not?  If so, what gives you the right to make another person's personal decisions for them?  What, and who gives you this right?  On topic enough for you?

                               replyreport
                               1. 54

                                  Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                  "do you think YOU should decide whether a woman should have an abortion or not?"
                                  
                                  Me personally, or me as a member of society? If you meant me personally then that is just irrational, but as a member of a society that holds values expressed through the law that makes all but the most clearly and carefully diagnosed medically necessary procedures illegal? I would hope that the majority of men and women would decide to express their will thus.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 92

                                     Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                     So your answer is?  Not me personally because that would be irrational or, I would hope everyone agreed with my view?
                                     
                                     A yes or no answer would do fine.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 54

                                        Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                        "So your answer is?"
                                        
                                        My answer is above. I'm sure you saw it there, though it seems you didn't read it carefully.

                                        report
                                        1. 92

                                           Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                           I guess not!  Was that a yes or no?

                                           report
          2. 86

             Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             The accusation was made using unnecessarily vulgar words, but it is not baseless. Above, SirDent linked to five sites that offer postnatal support for a kid and his mom. Of those five, two are explicitly pro-choice, two are government-run/funded, which makes them either pro-choice or neutral on the subject, and only one(!) is explicitly pro-life (though apparently there are still google ads that link to abortion providers, since the owner of the site felt the need to disavow support for them).
             
             This is a statistically insignificant sample, but check it: Dent was trying to find pro-life folks who offered support for kids after they stop being fetuses, and managed to fine only one on the whole darn internet. He thought he'd found five, but four of them are actually pro-choice.
             
             Based on that alone, it sure looks like the pro-choice people care about children, while the pro-life crowd seem to care more about fetuses. I'm glad there are at least some who also care about children, and I respect those folks a lot more than the rest of the anti-choice crowd.

             replyreport
             1. 54

                Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "This is a statistically insignificant sample,"
                
                To say the least

                replyreport
                1. 86

                   Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   So find another anti-choice site or two that supports moms and new kids.
                   
                   Show us that the anti-choice crowd cares as much for the born as the unborn.
                   
                   Or can you?

                   replyreport
                   1. 54

                      Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      You're looking in the wrong place. Many religious organizations provide just such services. You are also looking at it the wrong way. It's not a competition or a case of mutual exclusivity.

                      replyreport
36. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Actually, Sab Oh. You browbeat people who disagree with you and definitely want to win the arguments. You expect to bully people so much that they won't question you or will just leave.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       How exactly do you "win"? Who decides? It's a ridiculous notion. Do you expect to make people change their deeply held opinions? That's not very realistic. Believing what you believe and having your own opinions is NOT "browbeating" for cryin' out loud.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The fact that you always have to have the last word shows you have to win. Of course you are entitled to your opinions...as are the rest of us.
          
          Repeating the same thing over and over when someone states their opinion and basically belittling anyone who disagrees with you...that is browbeating.

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             You can't just add "basically" and then define terms any way you want.

             replyreport
37. 69

    TMMasonposted 7 years ago

    AP... "Is one bunch of cells that has the possibility of developing into an American got more rights that a village full of people in Vietnam, or a surburb full of people in Baghdad, or a village in South America slaughtered by US backed mercenaries trying to destabilise left wing governments ?"
    
    Chuckin out the hyperbolic BS in this qhestion, I guess it would read...
    
    Is one bunch of cells that has the possibility of developing into an American got more rights that a village full of people in Vietnam, or a surburb full of people in Baghdad, or a village in South America
    
    No he/she does not.
    
    But she/he is worth no less, either.
    
    And as soon as that unborn child declares war on the US, or attacks soldiers, or even just picks up an Ak 47, we will let you kill him/her also.
    
    I hope that answers your question AP.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       alternate poetposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yes it does answer my question - when ever did Vietnam declare war on America, or Iraq, or any South Aamerican country?  Yet you still killed them - double standards and hypocrisy at its best - and it show exactly your nauseating thinking on life.

       replyreport
       1. 69

          TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Oh you nthink we just went to vietnam?...
          
          You do know there was Veitnamese oppostion to the communists.
          
          You do know our intent was to help save them from having to live under communist oppression? Iraq got what it had coming, it should've been done in 1990.
          
          And what is your beef with south america... you think it was all pink roses and holidays before America showed up?
          
          You have a limited understanding of things AP.

          replyreport
38. 84

    Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago

    Actually, I don't believe that it is only "leftists" who are pro-choice. Isn't Laura Bush?

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yes all the progressives agree with you. you haven't got that yet have you UW.... Progressives are in all the parties.
       
       And they all have to go.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          What do you propose? Extermination camps? Dear me - you sound like Adolph Hitler in 1938.
          
          At least your true colors are showing.

          replyreport
          1. 69

             TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Hitler was a Leant Leftist... your ilk, Mark.
             
             You people amaze me with the confusion you suffer about what your own are doing and have done. Funny the Left loves Stalin, mass murderer, Moa, mass murderer, Che, mass murderer... but you always try to shove adolf at us.
             
             Telling... very telling indeed as to the ways of the left.

             replyreport
             1. 86

                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You keep tossing that phrase about, "leant leftist"
                
                I understand the "leftist" part: politically to the left, liberal, etc.
                
                Where does the word "leant" come in? Are you using it as its dictionary definition (that is, the past tense/past participle of "lean")?
                
                I'm genuinely curious about this usage.
                
                [edit] I just googled the phrase "leant leftist," and the only instances of its use online that came up were TM's, here on the HubPages.[/edit]

                replyreport
                1. 69

                   TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Yes.
                   
                   As in almost completely fallen over to the.... off tilt.... out of kilter... slipped it's axis.
                   
                   Leant.
                   
                   I bet ron will be giddy with joy someone finally googled it.
                   
                   In that your minds are so far streched to the left. Your toes are barely clinging to the solid ground of reality.
                   
                   And it makes me so damn proud to know that even Google realizes and knows that I am one of a kind... an original.
                   
                   I have been validated by Google... ahhh the leant Left must be oh so jealous... Google is a very great left wing endorsment.
                   
                   Damn I am good.
                   
                   Nice...

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      Along with their other alternate realities, they apparently are so dissatisfied with the English language that they feel compelled to invent their own.

                      replyreport
                      1. 69

                         TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         I do not need your, or anyone elses permission to twist the English language as I want, or feel the urge to.
                         
                         If the leant left can redifine words and phrases as they feel to... then I can use language the way I want to.
                         
                         Besides, you do know that languages are living entities that do grow and evolve over time.
                         
                         Don't you?
                         
                         Don't be so stagnant in your life and thoughts, ron. It shows.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            
                            
                            Just like the Constitution.
                            
                            Or do you have an indefensible view on that matter as well #7 ?

                            replyreport
          2. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Who said anything about "extermination camps"????
             
             You know someone has run out of things to say when they start shouting "You're Hitler!" "You're Hitler!"
             
             

             replyreport
39. 59

    SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago

    ...couldn't resist...have a good day all!
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       that is funny as all hell, SOT.
       
       Goose steppin like a true leftist.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          .....LOL! 
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 69

             TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Yes SOT, Bush is a Progressive.
             
             Did you really not know that?

             replyreport
40. 60

    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    It's an amazing little world the wingnuts have created in their minds; one where:
    
    Hitler was a social/political progressive.
    
    McCarthy was an enlightened prophet rather than an alcoholic, paranoid, closet homosexual, who drank himself to death before the age of 50.
    
    Women are second class citizens, and men have every right to decide health issues for them - how very Taliban of you.
    
    Lies become truth when you repeat them enough.
    
    Murder is wrong unless there's oil to be gained.
    
    The president of the United States - elected by a majority of Americans is a Kenyan Muslim Dictator who somehow fooled the ignorant people of the U.S. into voting for him.
    
    The Tea Party is not a racist organization, it's just been led by a racist.
    
    And the most amuzing alternate reality...
    
    Sarah Palin's brilliance.
    
    One wonders how such an enlightened bunch has so little political power.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       "Women are second class citizens"
       
       No one here has said that but those using it as an oh-so-dramatic accusation.
       
       "Murder is wrong unless there's oil to be gained."
       
       No one has said that either.
       
       You might pay more attention to accuracy and less to dramatics.

       replyreport
       1. 69

          TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If it were nnot for dramatics, he and many others would have nothing.

          replyreport
       2. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Dramatic?
          
          Not really.
          
          Amuzed at the ineptitude and futility?
          
          Most definitely.

          replyreport
       3. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          At least you copped to the rest.
          
          That's a start toward understanding reality.
          
          Here, I'll give your brilliant response for you.
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 54

             Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Nobody "copped" to anything.
             
             indeed

             replyreport
41. 51

    leebertteaposted 7 years ago

    Another parallel, Hitler blamed the capitalists for the economic collapse that led to the depression.
    
    Oh and how did Hitler put German back to work? With military jobs, and how will Obama do it? With Green jobs based on government spending...

    replyreport
    1. 92

       Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Is that your answer to my question?

       replyreport
       1. 51

          leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Your question is absurd. Capitalism depends on free trade, what you're suggesting is farmers are going to grow abundent food for the purpose of keeping it for themselves. It's a ridiculous notion.

          replyreport
          1. 92

             Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I suggested nothing of the sort!  There are fields full of food rotting on the ground around here.  The farmers cannot afford to have the produce picked because the price the brokers are paying is too low.  But in the grocery stores the prices haven't fallen at all and even rise in some cases.
             
             Watermelons and other produce are free for the taking while the farmers lost their costs for growing abundant crops.  The big companies get together and decide how much they will pay for the crops, just as they always have.
             
             Tobacco is about $2.00 a lb., not that it is considered food but just using it as an example of the collusion between the buyers.  The $2.00 a lb the grower gets is by no means profit.  The farmer has over half that much in seed, fertilizer, labor, and diesel.
             
             One pound of tobacco will produce perhaps 50 packs of cigarettes when blended with filler which in New York will bring about $250!  The produce and other crops are similar in that a farmer barely makes a profit and often takes a loss on perishable products. 
             
             I grow peanuts on my farm, along with beef cattle.  $400 per ton for peanuts if we are lucky and slightly over $1.00 a lb. max for the cattle.  What do you pay for a beef tenderloin where you live?  This is after raising and feeding the cattle along with fencing and vet bills.
             
             The farmers do not want to keep the food for themselves but wish the food they produce to be sold at reasonable prices so the public will get the food instead of it being plowed under. 
             
             The greed of the big business owners prevent this from happening and many farmers are losing their farms to those who contract with big business.  Wait until corporations get full control and then tell me I am wrong!

             replyreport
42. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Uh, who else could you blame for the economic collapse that led to the depression?

    replyreport
    1. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Fanny Mea, Freddie Mac, Cris Dodd, Barney Frank the Progressives and Leant Leftist democrats in congress who founded and instituted the policies to arrange this disaster.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Fanny Mea?  What's your favorite porn star got to do with W's economic collapse?  Were her dvd's not selling well?

          replyreport
43. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Are you for real?
    Obama's foreign policy vs. Hitler's foreign policy?
    I don't think invading neighboring coutries and allying with the Japanese and Italians in a bloody war constitutes "restoring Germany's standing in the world."
    If that was his intent, he failed miserably.

    replyreport
    1. 51

       leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Not exactly foreign policy but his stated desire to restore foreigners view of America equates to Hitlers promotion of German pride in their country.

       replyreport
44. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    It was actually leeberttea's comment, which says
    "Another parallel, Hitler blamed the capitalists for the economic collapse that led to the depression."
    
    So Fanny Mae,Freddy Mac and Barney Frank caused the Great Depression of the 1930s?
    
    Did dinosaurs roam the earth then, too???

    replyreport
    1. 51

       leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Aren't you paying attention? We were drawing parallels to Obama today and Hitler in the late 30's to show how the progressive democrats (and republicians) are similar to Hitler's Nazi party.

       replyreport
    2. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       You know what depression I am talking about... the great depression of 2005-8. You know the one all the money had to be spent on, now!... or the world would end.
       
       I am sure your familiar with it.
       
       And you do know that the depression your speaking of was only made exponientially worse by FDR and his Progressive commie loving traitorous advisors, aides and consulars.
       
       Yup... the Progressives screwed us good then... this time they understand they cannot let the boot off our throat till the people and country are dead, and firmly under the yoke of Leftist oppression.
       
       We really do live in an age were it is a fight for the surival of America as we know it. As she has been in her greatness... everything that has made this country great is about to be thrown in the trash.
       
       The Left might think it is a joke... but most Americans do not.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Wow - Them bankers sure done confused you innit? LOLOLOL

          replyreport
45. 60

    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    Thanks for the laughs guys.  I gotta go do some work.
    
    P.S.  Work (also referred to as a job) is completing a task or tasks and...get this; you receive payment from some people who are pleased that you did the tasks well.
    
    Try it sometime, you'll be happier and the interaction with flesh and blood non web-based people will give you a more realistic view of the world.

    replyreport
46. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    leeberrtea,
    Even if their intent is the same, their processes to re-establish national pride could not be more different.
    Hitler was basically a big bad bully.
    Obama inherited an America that had lost the world's respect due to Bush and his cronies.
    Obama is employing the exact opposite tactics to reach out to the world. Not overrun the world.

    replyreport
    1. 51

       leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       It's not the tactics that matter, it's the desired result. Remember, the end justifies the means.

       replyreport
       1. 86

          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          So...Obama's desired result is the same as Hitler's?
          In what ways? I really wanna hear this.

          replyreport
          1. 51

             leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Well Obama hasn't been completely successful yet. At least Hitler was able to put his citizens back to work. Perhaps if Obama can succeed at that one thing he may become more like Hitler.

             replyreport
             1. 69

                TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think he can do it with only green jobs, even FDR knew you at least had to do some of the public works jobs you claimed to create.
                
                I thiink this administration and congressional Leftists and Progressives are teetering between starting and all out race and class war.... or to actually make people work.
                
                They lose alot of votes if people actually have to work.
                
                And Jeff, yes.
                
                In a wierd sort of way Obama does want the same thing....a Socialist utopia. 
                
                The Leant Leftists just cannot understand it is a failed idea.
                
                Over and over it has produced the same results, blood, death, oppression, re-education camps, poverty, mass graves, mass starvation, decades of brutal tortures and gulags, the mass execution of millions of its own citizens, and lastly... a desire for democracy and capitolism.
                
                They all, the leant leftist's heroes and icons, have some polluted Marxist influenced nightmare of a dream for thier countries. Always... and we, the citizens, pay for it.

                replyreport
                1. 86

                   Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   "In a wierd sort of way Obama does want the same thing....a Socialist utopia."
                   So...when is Obama going to start rounding up...hang on, who will he be rounding up? I mean, to create this utopia. Because to really be a parallel with Hitlers idea of a "socialist" utopia (leaving aside for the moment that Hitler's government was a fascist one, not a socialist one), it's got to be a utopia for one kind of people, and there needs to be a purging of the wrong kinds of people. So which kinds of people are the wrong kinds, and when will the purge take place?
                   
                   Oh, and when will Obama start to occupy our neighbors' territory to ensure that Americans will always have enough lebensraum?
                   
                   Oh, wait, we'd already started invading other countries under the last administration....

                   replyreport
                   1. 69

                      TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      "Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind.  And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent, which is why Olbermann's extensive coverage of it is important. "
                      
                      More like Adolf everyday...
                      
                      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn … /olbermann

                      replyreport
                      1. 63

                         lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Wait a minute....didn't this start with Bush???
                         
                         Wasn't it the Patriotic Real All American My Way or the Highway thing to do???
                         
                         NOW it's bad?
                         
                         What are you, morals swinging with the wind? Political morality?? Good for Bush, Bad for Obama?
                         
                         Give it a rest....your crowd of kooks ruined America....no matter how much you blame Obama, Progressives, Liberals, Poor People, Anyonenotlikeyou.....
                         
                         You think you and the rest of the tighty brigade can scream loud enough and obstruct enough that you will be a shoe-in come November?
                         
                         Think again. People remember political opportunism at their expense.
                         And when the pubs come back from break all tanned and rested while others don't eat....wait and see how much America likes you then.
                         
                         Because we know who to blame. We might not all be elephants, but we don't forget.

                         replyreport
                         1. 69

                            TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            Whaaaa chrs....
                            
                            If this was under Bush YOU would have been freakin out about it.
                            
                            But since it is obama doing it, then it is just fine. This is uacceptable and no American should defend it. Americans', regardless of where in the world they are, possess thier Constitutional Rights.
                            
                            And your right about one thing.... America does know who is to blame. And you all will be out of office soon.

                            replyreport
                         2. 86

                            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            "Wait a minute....didn't this start with Bush???"
                            No, not extrajudicial executions of American citizens. That sure as heck didn't start with W, or if it did, it didn't get leaked.
                            
                            W was responsible for a lot of egregious infringements on our rights, but as far as I know, he never ordered the assassination of an American. This is new.
                            
                            I'm surprised I hadn't heard about it before. Why aren't the tea-partiers freaking out about this?
                            
                            This is indisputably unconstitutional. But, hey, I guess since it doesn't cost them anything in taxes, plus, it kills a muslim, they don't care.
                            
                            But I do. Either Obama rescinds this assassination order and apologizes to the American people for issuing it in the first place, or I will do every legal thing in my power to not only ensure he doesn't get reelected but is impeached.

                            replyreport
47. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    leeberttea:
    1. Yes, I am paying attention. That doesn't make it any easier to follow your faulty logic.
    2. When you say "WE were drawing parallels..." to whom are you referring? Do you always refer to yourself in the royal form?
    
    TMMason:
    Again, you are not the one who brought up the parallel. That was leeberttea and leeberttea clearly stated that HITLER blamed the capitalists for the depression. I'm 99% sure the only depression Hitler experienced was the one during his lifetime.

    replyreport
    1. 51

       leebertteaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       1. When I say "we" I am referring to those with something intelligent to add to the discussion, in other words you're no longer involved.
       
       2. If you were paying attention you might not consider my logic faulty.

       replyreport
48. 83

    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    I guess you get your definition of "intelligence" from Fox News.
    
    Here is how your argument reads:
    Hitler desired national pride (A)
    Obama desires national pride (B)
    Since all B are the same as A,
    Obama = Hitler

    replyreport
49. 63

    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Imagine how nice it would be if someone had aborted Hitler.
    
    ALL that terrible stuff would never have happened...
    World would be a better place.
    
    I rest my case.

    replyreport
    1. 54

       Sab Ohposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       By that logic, if you just kill off the entire human race there will never be another dictator.
       
       
       

       replyreport
       1. 92

          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Wow!  I have to agree with you there, Sab!  How do you plan to pull it off?  Elect Palin?

          replyreport
       2. 63

          lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Nah, we'll just kill off the ones I don't like....kind of like the Neo-Cons do.

          replyreport
    2. 69

       TMMasonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Actually that old guy who spoke on abc news for years on the radio used to tell a story of a mother on the Austrian Germany border who sought an abortion only to have the doctor turn her away because he didn't want to do one.
       
       And that woman was Hitlers mother and the unborn child, Adolf.
       
       I don't know how true it is, but thats the story. It was probrably just leftist BS propaganda by the abortion for all crowd.

       replyreport
       1. 92

          Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If you had said Fox News I might believe it!

          replyreport
50. 0

    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    

    replyreport