Hello Brian,
Russia can't annex stuff humanely without the help of the Obama/Biden
regime.
You must be French
I wonder if they ever recognized the problem of the Maginot line.
Ukraine defense forces are close to 300,000...they are not going to just
roll over. Russia may end up finding itself neck deep in a guerrilla
war, and many pockets of Ukrainian supporters already deployed within
Russia.
I'm sure the Russians have planted many cells within Ukraine as well.
They
don't need our President in the middle of it do they? Where are the UN
peacekeeping troops in the blue beanies? I hope the US stays out of
this.
We have bigger problems.
Neville Chamberlain would be proud if he had supporters like you.
Unfortunately for him (and Adolf Hitler), Winston Churchill stood in his way.
On 02-21-22 03:33, Al Thompson <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about All talk no action <=-
I still like Biden's stance that he articulated at the UN
that there would be firm consequences if Russia invades,
unless they just invade a little bit.
Obama/BidenRussia can't annex stuff humanely without the help of the
regime.
You must be French
I wonder if they ever recognized the problem of the Maginot line.
justUkraine defense forces are close to 300,000...they are not going to
withinroll over. Russia may end up finding itself neck deep in a guerrilla
war, and many pockets of Ukrainian supporters already deployed
well.Russia.
I'm sure the Russians have planted many cells within Ukraine as
UNThey
don't need our President in the middle of it do they? Where are the
peacekeeping troops in the blue beanies? I hope the US stays out of
this.
We have bigger problems.
Neville Chamberlain would be proud if he had supporters like you.
Unfortunately for him (and Adolf Hitler), Winston Churchill stood inhis
way.
Ukraine and Russia have fought each other for a few hundred years. Much of eastern Ukraine is ethnically Russian, speaks Russian, has Russian Passports, etc.
Ukraine is not a NATO member, so we have no obligation to go to war to defend them.
The Ukrainian government is nearly as corrupt as the Russian government.
Are you willing to send your kids or your grandkids to fight and die to defend ethnic Russians in Ukraine?
If you are, send them to join the Asov Battalion who has been fighting against the Russians for 8 years or so. They are actively recruiting people to fight the Russians. BTW - they're neo-Nazi.
If you're not willing to send your kids to fight the Russians, then you can't accuse anyone else of being an appeasement advocate.
Brian Franklin wrote to Dr. What <=-
Ukraine defense forces are close to 300,000...they are not going to
just roll over. Russia may end up finding itself neck deep in a
guerrilla war, and many pockets of Ukrainian supporters already
deployed within Russia. I'm sure the Russians have planted many cells within Ukraine as well. They don't need our President in the middle of
it do they? Where are the UN peacekeeping troops in the blue beanies?
I hope the US stays out of this. We have bigger problems.
Now Putin has chosen to continue his invasion of Ukraine by having
Russian troops occupy the Donbas region. President Biden has imposed additional sanctions on Russia as a result. Europe is doing the same.
Now Putin has chosen to continue his invasion of Ukraine by having Russian troops occupy the Donbas region. President Biden has imposed additional sanctions on Russia as a result. Europe is doing the same.
But nobody is really giving a flying one. When you care about something, you show commitment. But Biden's showing that he's a pushover with lame sanctions that are meaningless to the man who owns half of the world. Putin's got everything he needs right there at home. And now he's gonna have ocean frontage on the Black Sea. But I wonder why Putin didn't give it a try while Trump was president? Could it be because Trump shows commitment?
Ron L. wrote to Brian Franklin <=-
Brian Franklin wrote to Dr. What <=-
I hope the US stays out of this. We have bigger problems.
Agreed. If the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation,
that's a U.N. problem, not a U.S. problem.
But there are certain groups who NEED a crisis like this to distract people from the other things that they are doing.
Now Putin has chosen to continue his invasion of Ukraine by having
Russian troops occupy the Donbas region. President Biden has imposed
additional sanctions on Russia as a result. Europe is doing the same.
But nobody is really giving a flying one.
When you care about something, you show commitment.
But Biden's showing that he's a pushover with lame sanctions
that are meaningless to the man who owns half of the world.
Putin's got everything he needs right there at home.
And now he's gonna have ocean frontage on the Black Sea.
But I wonder why Putin didn't give it a try while Trump was
president? Could it be because Trump shows commitment?
"Hmm, that excessively COMMITED president of the USA will respond strongly if we invade now. Let's wait for white Obama."
Neville Chamberlain showed commitment - to Adolf Hitler.
Donald Trump showed commitment - to Vladimir Putin.
As long as you claim to be Christian, you should be OK.
As long as you claim to be Christian, you should be OK.
Well, actually, in Germany you should be OK. In the US you have to rip out the Christian part of the Bible and stay with the Jewish part.
Christ, as those of us who have actually read the New Testament know, was socialist, even more extremely so than even Karl Marx. If you try to follow
his teachings, you'll be even worse than a Muslim, you'll be a Leftist.
Neville Chamberlain showed commitment - to Adolf Hitler.
Donald Trump showed commitment - to Vladimir Putin.
Adolf blamed everything on the Jews.
Donald blamed everything on the Muslims.
And then there's MTG with the Jews again...
As long as you claim to be Christian, you should be OK.
If the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's a U.N. problem, not a U.S. problem.
If the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's a U.N problem, not a U.S. problem.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
If the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's a U.N problem, not a U.S. problem.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
You're pretty new around here to be assuming such things.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
You're pretty new around here to be assuming such things.
And you're pretty ancient around here to be assuming what I am assuming. What's your point, troll? t(-_-t)
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
You're pretty new around here to be assuming such things.
And you're pretty ancient around here to be assuming what I am assumi What's your point, troll? t(-_-t)
It's entirely possible that Ron disclosed his location to Lee and/or others without you (or I, for that matter) knowing about it. And yet, despite this, you somehow assumed that Lee doesn't know where Ron lives.
Accusing Lee of not knowing while not knowing that he doesn't know was a pretty trollish move, don't you think?
Accusing Lee of not knowing while not knowing that he doesn't know wa pretty trollish move, don't you think?
No. Choosing this issue to argue is a very trollish move, in my opinion. But, I must bow to the master. Tell me, troll, what is trolling? t(o_Ot)
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
You're pretty new around here to be assuming such things.
And you're pretty ancient around here to be assuming what I am assuming. What's your point, troll? t(-_-t)
If the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's problem, not a U.S. problem.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
I fully agree, this is a global problem, not a U.N.-only one. But I don't agree with the fear-mongering.
You don't even know where the man lives!
Ron has, in past, told us what state he lives in. He may have told the city but I don't remember for sure.
You only objected to one sentence:
You don't even know where the man lives!Ironically, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually Lee, right now... (o_-)
Ron has, in past, told us what state he lives in. He may have told t city but I don't remember for sure.
I was not aware of this. However, I still stand by what I said:
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
a U.NIf the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's
problem, not a U.S. problem.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
Nevermind that the US is part of the UN.
a U.NIf the the world has problem with the Ukraine situation, that's
problem, not a U.S. problem.
Putin has nukes. And your city is a target.
You don't even know where the man lives!
I fully agree, this is a global problem, not a U.N.-only one. But I don't agree with the fear-mongering.
Ironically, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually Lee, right now (o_-)
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion. It is possible to be of two minds on a single decision. Again I ask, what's
your point?
Don't start again. This is not the fight you're looking for...*waves
hand in a Jedi way*
Shaun Buzza wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
For the record, I am definitely *not* Lee! \(@_@)/
You only objected to one sentence:now...
You don't even know where the man lives!Ironically, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually Lee, right
(o_-)
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
right nowIronically, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually Lee,
(o_-)
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and
doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
For the record, I am definitely *not* Lee! \(@_@)/
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
I neither confirm nor deny. (o_-)
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion.
It is possible to be of two minds on a single decision.
Again I ask, what's your point?
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not,
pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
Being pro-life and anti-life is a contradiction in terms, no
matter how you cut it. Claiming to have it both ways makes you
an absolute and total hypocrite.
Ron has, in past, told us what state he lives in. He may have told the city but I don't remember for sure.
I was not aware of this. However, I still stand by what I said:
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
I fully agree, this is a global problem, not a U.N.-only one. But I don't
agree with the fear-mongering.
That's what I was doing, troll.
On 28 Feb 2022, Shaun Buzza said the following...
You only objected to one sentence:
You don't even know where the man lives!Ironically, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually Lee, right now... (o_-)
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
I was not aware of this. However, I still stand by what I said:
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
Could be, could be. Or, since you're so certain of what Lee knows and doesn't know, perhaps *you're* Lee!
For the record, I am definitely *not* Lee! \(@_@)/
We haven't seen any drivel by Lee in a while now. But I noticed that the leftie Dream Master has showed back up again. So those two are probably the same people.
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion. It is possible to be of two minds on a single decision. Again I ask, what's your point?
So you disagree with fearmongering, unless it's you doing it? That's an interesting double standard.
My point is that your opinions lack internal consistency. That's a sign of an unhealthy mind.
On 03-01-22 21:00, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Shaun Buzza about All talk no action <=-
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not,
pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
anti-abortion.I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not,
pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
No, that's not the case.
I believe that any individual has the right to choose for themself
how they feel about it.
Literally, "pro-choice".
I choose to be pro-life, personally,
but that doesn't mean I think *no one* should have abortions.
How someone else chooses is up to them.
Being pro-life and anti-life is a contradiction in terms, no
matter how you cut it. Claiming to have it both ways makes you
an absolute and total hypocrite.
I never claimed such a thing. (o_O)
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion. possible to be of two minds on a single decision. Again I ask, what your point?
My point is that your opinions lack internal consistency. That's a sign unhealthy mind.
I don't think his stance on abortion is inconsistent. I am pro-choice
but would have difficulty with someone aborting a child I thought was mine. I *think* that is what he meant.
I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally anti-abortion.
I have a different take on what he said. If I am wrong, then he will correct me. The way I read his sentence is that he is pro-choice for other people, but is against abortion as a personal matter. I see no contradiction in that. One is a policy decision for the rest of the public, the other is a personal decision for himself.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not, pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
And -- if that is what he meant, then both you and Jeff are wrong.
anti-abortion.I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not,
pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
No, that's not the case.
Yes, it is. Being pro-life means from the moment of conception
to the moment of natural death.
I believe that any individual has the right to choose for themself how they feel about it.
Suicide is not a legal act, but folks do it anyway. Not that any
entity would actually prosecute them if they succeed.
Literally, "pro-choice".
Murdering an unborn child is a choice.
Murdering a child who has been born is a choice.
Murdering an adult is a choice.
None of those choices are pro-life.
I choose to be pro-life, personally,
You have contradicted yourself by stating otherwise.
but that doesn't mean I think *no one* should have abortions.
That makes you pro-death.
How someone else chooses is up to them.
Right. Hitler was your kind of guy. Murdered 11 million people,
including 6 million Jews. Along with another 50 million people in
a massive world war.
How many unborn children have been murdered since Hitler's time?
Being pro-life and anti-life is a contradiction in terms, no
matter how you cut it. Claiming to have it both ways makes you
an absolute and total hypocrite.
I never claimed such a thing. (o_O)
Yes, you did. And you continue to claim the same nonsense.
I have a different take on what he said. If I am wrong, then he will correct me. The way I read his sentence is that he is pro-choice for
other people, but is against abortion as a personal matter. I see no contradiction in that. One is a policy decision for the rest of the public, the other is a personal decision for himself.
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not, pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
And -- if that is what he meant, then both you and Jeff are wrong.
Being pro-life and anti-life is a contradiction in terms, no
matter how you cut it. Claiming to have it both ways makes you
an absolute and total hypocrite.
I never claimed such a thing. (o_O)
Yes, you did. And you continue to claim the same nonsense.
No, I haven't, and continue not to. I am *PRO-CHOICE*, with a personal choice of pro-life.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand this concept, but that's your
problem, not mine.
anti-abortion.I've also said I was pro-choice, and yet personally
You can't have it both ways. Either you are, or you are not,
pro-life. One cannot be pro-choice if one is pro-life, as that
in and of itself is a contradiction. Just as bad is to say one
is pro-life while at the same time claiming to be in favor of
the death penalty.
No, that's not the case.
Yes, it is. Being pro-life means from the moment of conception
to the moment of natural death.
themselfI believe that any individual has the right to choose for
how they feel about it.
Suicide is not a legal act, but folks do it anyway. Not that any
entity would actually prosecute them if they succeed.
It would be hilarious to watch the results if they tried. 'For killing yourself, I now give you the death penalty!' (o_O)
Literally, "pro-choice".
Murdering an unborn child is a choice.
Murdering a child who has been born is a choice.
Murdering an adult is a choice.
None of those choices are pro-life.
I choose to be pro-life, personally,
You have contradicted yourself by stating otherwise.
but that doesn't mean I think *no one* should have abortions.
That makes you pro-death.
How someone else chooses is up to them.
Right. Hitler was your kind of guy. Murdered 11 million people,
including 6 million Jews. Along with another 50 million people in
a massive world war.
How many unborn children have been murdered since Hitler's time?
And we've reached Godwin status. You have just invalidated your entire post.
I have a different take on what he said. If I am wrong, then he will
correct me. The way I read his sentence is that he is pro-choice for
other people, but is against abortion as a personal matter. I see no
contradiction in that. One is a policy decision for the rest of the
public, the other is a personal decision for himself.
Another way to look at it, for me anyway, is that I don't feel like I have a right to make that particular decision for others. So, public policy wise, I am pro-choice.
Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-
Another way to look at it, for me anyway, is that I don't feel like I
have a right to make that particular decision for others. So, public policy wise, I am pro-choice.
Then you are pro-death.
Just like Joe Biden.
Thanks for clarifying that point.
Being pro-life and anti-life is a contradiction in terms, no
matter how you cut it. Claiming to have it both ways makes you
an absolute and total hypocrite.
I never claimed such a thing. (o_O)
Yes, you did. And you continue to claim the same nonsense.
No, I haven't, and continue not to. I am *PRO-CHOICE*, with a persona choice of pro-life.
The definition of pro-life is from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death. Anything other than that is pro-death.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand this concept, but that's your problem, not mine.
It is a very simple concept.
Pro-life and pro-death are polar opposites.
Claiming you can have it both ways is total nonsense.
Then you are pro-death.
Just like Joe Biden.
Thanks for clarifying that point.
Really? Is that what your country is worried about in this time of war?
Now that the future of democracy is challenged all over the world in Ukraine?
Ah yes, of course the GOP care shit about stuff like democracy, all they care about is maintaining their own part of the illegal profits they have managed to scrape up during their -- whatchamanycallit.
Hallelujah, the US dream in a nutshell.
The definition of pro-life is from the moment of conception to the
moment of natural death. Anything other than that is pro-death.
It must be difficult going through life seeing only black and white, when the world consists primarily of shades of grey. It might help to be a little more open-minded.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand this concept, but that's your
problem, not mine.
It is a very simple concept.
Pro-life and pro-death are polar opposites.
Claiming you can have it both ways is total nonsense.
Once again, I've never claimed that.
I am not "pro-death", which is a deliberately misleading term, by the way.
I am pro-choice.
Let each person choose for themself.
It is not my place to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do.
And certainly not my place to pass judgement if anyone disagrees
with my personal choices.
Claiming that one is either pro-life or "pro-death", ignoring the very concept of pro-choice, is very simply total nonsense.
It must be difficult going through life seeing only black and white, the world consists primarily of shades of grey. It might help to be a little more open-minded.
The definition of pro-life is what it is. There are no shades of gray
as the meaning is quite clear. Making it out to be whatever you want it
to be does not change the reality of what it is.
I'm sorry if you cannot understand this concept, but that's your
problem, not mine.
It is a very simple concept.
Pro-life and pro-death are polar opposites.
Claiming you can have it both ways is total nonsense.
Once again, I've never claimed that.
Claiming to be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is a contradiction
in terms. It is like claiming to believe in "life" and "death" in the
same sentence.
We all know that death comes to us all. But death should never
come to anyone before his/her own time. As such, those who claim
to be "pro-choice" are actually saying premeditated murder is
fine with them. Which is very much a "pro-death" POV.
I am not "pro-death", which is a deliberately misleading term, by the
Making the choice to kill someone (or an unborn child) is "pro-death"
no matter how you cut it. Approving those who make that choice is also "pro-choice".
I am pro-choice.
Pro-death is more accurate and to the point.
Let each person choose for themself.
Thou shalt not murder is a commandment. Not that murderers bother
to listen. Do you honestly believe Vladimir Putin gives a damn about
all those innocent people he is sending to their deaths? Not just
those innocent souls in Ukraine, but also those innocent souls in
Russia who have no choice but to do as he says. What a monster he
is. Nobody likes him. Except for Donald Trump. And he's kooks.
It is not my place to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do.
So it is okay with you that Vladimir Putin can make war on the entire world, and kill as many people on this planet as possible?
And certainly not my place to pass judgement if anyone disagrees
with my personal choices.
It is everybody's business to pass judgement on those who kill.
Especially those who kill innocent people, including the unborn.
Claiming that one is either pro-life or "pro-death", ignoring the ver concept of pro-choice, is very simply total nonsense.
The concept of pro-choice is to kill. Actually, to murder.
In cold blood. Innocent unborn children. Very much pro-death.
I mean, there is that yearly ritual, where all us pro-choicers get together
and sacrifice our first-born's to the Goat...but that's it, I *swear*! (O_O)
(Sarcasm, in case that wasn't obvious...)
On 03-03-22 08:20, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: All talk no action <=-
Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-
Another way to look at it, for me anyway, is that I don't feel like I
have a right to make that particular decision for others. So, public policy wise, I am pro-choice.
I think most people feel the same way. That's why the "pro-choice"
stuff was accepte so readily.
But the Left then uses "pro-choice" to say that abortion is a "right"
and that everyone has to fund it.
Oh, BTW, over here in the scientific world, the heart of a human embryo does
not start to be more than a handful of cells after more than those weeks that the Texas experts think that life begins with. It takes about three months before you can even detect the first heartbeat.
But why leave scientifics out, when you can create a wonderful of Evangelical hype (that'll give you a lot of votes from stupid, gullible people)?
white,It must be difficult going through life seeing only black and
be athe world consists primarily of shades of grey. It might help to
little more open-minded.
The definition of pro-life is what it is. There are no shades of grayit
as the meaning is quite clear. Making it out to be whatever you want
to be does not change the reality of what it is.
The definition of pro-life isn't an issue. Your interpretation of pro-choice
is.
yourI'm sorry if you cannot understand this concept, but that's
problem, not mine.
It is a very simple concept.
Pro-life and pro-death are polar opposites.
Claiming you can have it both ways is total nonsense.
Once again, I've never claimed that.
Claiming to be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is a contradiction
in terms. It is like claiming to believe in "life" and "death" in the
same sentence.
I do claim to believe in both life and death. I am alive, therefore I believe in life. I will die, therefore I believe in death. (o_O)
We all know that death comes to us all. But death should never
come to anyone before his/her own time. As such, those who claim
to be "pro-choice" are actually saying premeditated murder is
fine with them. Which is very much a "pro-death" POV.
No, but nice strawman.
All pro-choice means is exactly what it says: I believe in letting others make their own choices.
by theI am not "pro-death", which is a deliberately misleading term,
Making the choice to kill someone (or an unborn child) is "pro-death"also
no matter how you cut it. Approving those who make that choice is
"pro-choice".
That's their personal choice, then. My personal choice is to not.
I am pro-choice.
Pro-death is more accurate and to the point.
No, it isn't. It is both inaccurate, and completely missing the point.
Let each person choose for themself.
Thou shalt not murder is a commandment. Not that murderers bother
to listen. Do you honestly believe Vladimir Putin gives a damn about
all those innocent people he is sending to their deaths? Not just
those innocent souls in Ukraine, but also those innocent souls in
Russia who have no choice but to do as he says. What a monster he
is. Nobody likes him. Except for Donald Trump. And he's kooks.
Wow. Just...wow... (o_O)
It is not my place to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do.
So it is okay with you that Vladimir Putin can make war on the entire
world, and kill as many people on this planet as possible?
No, I don't think this is okay.
Only a fool would think my words suggest anything like that.
And certainly not my place to pass judgement if anyone disagrees
with my personal choices.
It is everybody's business to pass judgement on those who kill.
Especially those who kill innocent people, including the unborn.
Are you suggesting that everyone should go vigilante? Mob justice? (o_O)
It is a judge's business to pass judgement on those who break the law; it's
literally in the job name. It is the police's business to enforce the same laws. It isn't mine, and unless you wear a pretty specific uniform to work,
it's not yours, either.
Beyond that, there's always the 'ultimate judge' at the end of days. Let Him
decide who is and is not "pro-death".
Claiming that one is either pro-life or "pro-death", ignoring the ver
concept of pro-choice, is very simply total nonsense.
The concept of pro-choice is to kill. Actually, to murder.
In cold blood. Innocent unborn children. Very much pro-death.
That logic is broken.
You're literally saying that anyone who is pro-choice has (themself) murdered "innocent unborn children" in cold blood.
I certainly haven't,
and I am pretty certain nobody I know has, either.
And they're all pro-choice, too.
I mean, there is that yearly ritual, where all us pro-choicers get together
and sacrifice our first-born's to the Goat...but that's it, I *swear*! (O_O)
(Sarcasm, in case that wasn't obvious...)
Another way to look at it, for me anyway, is that I don't feel like I
have a right to make that particular decision for others. So, public
policy wise, I am pro-choice.
I think most people feel the same way. That's why the "pro-choice"
stuff was accepte so readily.
But the Left then uses "pro-choice" to say that abortion is a "right"
and that everyone has to fund it.
Except that no federal funds are funding abortions.
that the Texas experts think that life begins with. It takes about three
months before you can even detect the first heartbeat.
Life begins at the moment of conception. Without life, no heartbeat
can ever begin ...
But the Left then uses "pro-choice" to say that abortion is a "right" and that everyone has to fund it.
Except that no federal funds are funding abortions.
I don't think his stance on abortion is inconsistent. I am pro-choice
but would have difficulty with someone aborting a child I thought was mine. I *think* that is what he meant.
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
Oh dear, glad that is not the case here.
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I missed the original message. I think it is human to be concerned about what is going on, but stirring up fear unnecessarily is not productive.
On 03-04-22 15:16, Mike Powell <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: All talk no action <=-
But the Left then uses "pro-choice" to say that abortion is a "right" and that everyone has to fund it.
Except that no federal funds are funding abortions.
I am never certain about how one can claim that. Don't federal funds
fund Planned Parenthood? I know they provide other services, but they also provide abortion services. Having federal funds for the other services helps them afford to provide abortion services.
Sort of like receiving an insurance check that you can only spend to replace your roof. The roof needs replacing regardless but, since you have that insurance money to replace it, you now have funds to spend on other things. Without the insurance check, you spend money on the roof and the other things have to wait until you have the money to afford
them.
* SLMR 2.1a * You're so vain / I bet you think this tagline's about
you -!- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
! Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
I mean, there is that yearly ritual, where all us pro-choicers gettogether
and sacrifice our first-born's to the Goat...but that's it, I*swear*!
(O_O)
(Sarcasm, in case that wasn't obvious...)
I am not sure what any of you are talking about. I live in Sweden, and to me
any talk about having politicians making laws about what our wonderful women can make their own decisions about is so alien to me I can't even imagine what y'all are talking about.
I guess it's one of those socialist Lefties things.
Oh, BTW, over here in the scientific world, the heart of a human embryo does
not start to be more than a handful of cells after more than those weeks that the Texas experts think that life begins with. It takes about three months before you can even detect the first heartbeat.
But why leave scientifics out, when you can create a wonderful of Evangelical hype (that'll give you a lot of votes from stupid, gullible people)?
This isn't just a U.N. issue! It's the first step toward WW3!
Didn't you also say that you didn't agree with the fearmongering?
I missed the original message. I think it is human to be concerned about
what is going on, but stirring up fear unnecessarily is not productive.
I believe someone was talking about Putin using nukes, and Shaun said he didn't agree with fearmongering, but here he is heralding WWIII.
Except that no federal funds are funding abortions.
I am never certain about how one can claim that. Don't federal funds fund Planned Parenthood? I know they provide other services, but they also provide abortion services. Having federal funds for the other services helps them afford to provide abortion services.
It is my understanding that abortion services have to be paid for from
other sources -- private, private insurance, endowments, etc.
Sort of like receiving an insurance check that you can only spend to replace your roof. The roof needs replacing regardless but, since you have that insurance money to replace it, you now have funds to spend on other things. Without the insurance check, you spend money on the roof and the other things have to wait until you have the money to afford them.
Your analogy only works if one already had the money to pay for the roof
from personal funds. It may sound logical, but I don't think it is 100% appropriate in this case.
On 03-05-22 11:24, Mike Powell <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: All talk no action <=-
Except that no federal funds are funding abortions.
I am never certain about how one can claim that. Don't federal funds fund Planned Parenthood? I know they provide other services, but they also provide abortion services. Having federal funds for the other services helps them afford to provide abortion services.
It is my understanding that abortion services have to be paid for from
other sources -- private, private insurance, endowments, etc.
If all that money went away, would they stop providing abortions, or
the other services?
I am not sure what any of you are talking about. I live in Sweden, and to me
any talk about having politicians making laws about what our wonderful
women can make their own decisions about is so alien to me I can't even
imagine what y'all are talking about.
The problem is not politicians making laws. It is politicians making
bad laws.
On 03-09-22 19:49, Björn Felten <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about All talk no action <=-
here, in the free world, we have updated our constitutions
as our countries have evolved.
As has the USA. We just did not throw it out and start over as some countries have done.
On 03-11-22 11:02, Björn Felten <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about All talk no action <=-
When was the last time it was amended, for instance? How many times
the last 100 years? What are the odds that a single amendment
will pass that senate abomination of yours within the next
100 years?
Last time = 1992, 8 times in last 100 years, 12 in 20th century.
We are talking about a deeply paranoid megalomaniac who is hellbent on starting WWIII. That is reason to be afraid. Very afraid.
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
Oh dear, glad that is not the case here.
On 03-12-22 21:23, Björn Felten <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about All talk no action <=-
Last time = 1992, 8 times in last 100 years, 12 in 20th century.
That maths does not add up. Unless, of course, you have
redefined the meaning of the English word 'amend'.
Since the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the
document has been amended 27 times. Ten of those, known as
the Bill of Rights, were passed in 1789. Leaving 17 new
amendments for almost 250 years.
BTW, the last one from 1992, that you mention, isn't that the one
that was originally proposed in 1789? Really important amendment, no?
#27:
"No law varying the compensation for the services of the
Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until
an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
IOW "protect our salaries, please"...
Or maybe we're all just figments of Lee's imagination.
Oh dear, glad that is not the case here.
But, what if Lee only imagined you saying that?
We are talking about a deeply paranoid megalomaniac who is hellbent on
starting WWIII. That is reason to be afraid. Very afraid.
Another problem is with the UN itself. They've shown no real inclination to
address the issue beyond just tut tutting about it. And in the end, Russia
has veto power over anything the UN decides to do or say.
Last time = 1992, 8 times in last 100 years, 12 in 20th century.
That maths does not add up. Unless, of course, you have redefined the meaning of the English word 'amend'.
Since the Constitution was ratified in 1788, the document has been amended 27 times. Ten of those, known as the Bill of Rights, were passed in
1789. Leaving 17 new amendments for almost 250 years.
BTW, the last one from 1992, that you mention, isn't that the one that was originally proposed in 1789? Really important amendment, no?
| Sysop: | Xerxes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Azle, Texas |
| Users: | 118 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 37:19:13 |
| Calls: | 3,012 |
| Calls today: | 0 |
| Files: | 154 |
| U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 292,844 |
| Posted today: | 0 |