Black lives matter

[Pheonixops]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

You can find conservative Republicans who say they don't want to, or is this just you making shit up?

Because conservative Republicans just want to save the babies and then leave them laying in the gutters outside the hospital.

Here is an idea....All children who need a home should be expedited and the bureaucracy removed in placing them in homes. Then, laws should be written that if the two biological parents create a life they don't want, they both should be required to pay the State Government the costs of housing, feeding, and educating the child until such time as they are placed in a home, or they reach the age of majority.

Does that sound good to you?

Who are the people complaining about "welfare" and "SNAP", Democrats or Republicans? Who are the people who continuously post stats about "the Blacks" and welfare, Democrats or Republicans?

I agree that they should be place in pre-screened homes for adoption. Those proposed laws don't bother me at all because my mindset is that you take care of something that you bring into this world. I think that "deadbeat Dads (and Moms)" , should be held accountable and made to pay for the "States'" upkeep of their children.
That said, some people will find abortion an easier alternative.

 

[Pheonixops]

Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?

P.S. All lives matter.

Seems that when Mr. O'Malley wanted to get YOUR suggestion across to a bunch of RACIST, MOTHER FUCKING, BLACK COCKSUCKERS, that wasn't the message THEY wanted to hear!....He TRIED to apologize for being PC but that fucking mob of low life scum, really didn't want to hear about that!.... Black DemocRATS, these just happened to be the POND SCUM of the Earth....Right?

Good God! Tell us what you really think!

I'd be banned again, if I did!

I'm not in favor of you being banned, you should be able to speak your mind (within the TOS) just like everyone else does. I DO think that the White House should have had their flags lowered in a more timely basis.

How DARE YOU go against your president that only took a WEEK to do that, while the same day he lite up the White House like a fucking rainbow! The HYPOCRISY was simply MAGNIFIED by his action!

LOL, I'm a free thinker and I call it as I see it. He's every much your President as he is my President, unless your are not an American citizen. I am willing to bet that if he did lower the flag on the same day, some folks would still complain that it wasn't "soon enough". I will reiterate the fact that I think that the White House and Federal Offices should have done it the next day.

 

[Pheonixops]

Weed doesn't result in over the top rants.

I yield to that man that would know!

Do you judge your own actions with the ridiculous level of elitism you use on others?

Mr. Trump has shown me that talking PLAIN SHIT, makes morons go crazy!

I'm a moron and I'm having a good laugh because of Trump.

You're partly right.

What? The "moron" part?

 

[Pheonixops]

If a slogan is needed it should be
"All lives matter".....

That makes a better point....
To say black lives matter suggests that other lives don't....

If Democrats were honest, the slogan would be "Black votes matter".

What votes matter to the xenophobic and homophobic Republican Party?

The votes of Americans, not Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, trans gender-Americans or German-Americans. JUST Americans.
But you can't grasp the concept.

LOL, what are the demographics of the Republic (Southern Strategy) party? How come the majority of Jews, Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, Muslim Americans, etc. vote for Democrats over Republicans? Do they all want "free stuff"? Are they all on the "Democrat Plantation"?

 

[Pheonixops]

Weed doesn't result in over the top rants.

I yield to that man that would know!

Do you judge your own actions with the ridiculous level of elitism you use on others?

Mr. Trump has shown me that talking PLAIN SHIT, makes morons go crazy!

I'm a moron and I'm having a good laugh because of Trump.

I'm glad to see you know what you are.... other FAGERALS don't think that way.... You are winning!

 

[Pheonixops]

Weed doesn't result in over the top rants.

I yield to that man that would know!

Do you judge your own actions with the ridiculous level of elitism you use on others?

Mr. Trump has shown me that talking PLAIN SHIT, makes morons go crazy!

I'm a moron and I'm having a good laugh because of Trump.

From what I saw Trump had a pretty good day at the border....

I'm sure that he did! He's certainly having a good day causing a brawl in the republican party. His exchanges with Perry are quite funny!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets be honest and admit that if black lives really mattered then black on black murder would be the focus. It would be the focus because 93% of all blacks killed in this country occurs from the hand of another black.

I'll admit it is extremely high and we must deal with it.

 

[Ernie S.]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

You can find conservative Republicans who say they don't want to, or is this just you making shit up?

Because conservative Republicans just want to save the babies and then leave them laying in the gutters outside the hospital.

Here is an idea....All children who need a home should be expedited and the bureaucracy removed in placing them in homes. Then, laws should be written that if the two biological parents create a life they don't want, they both should be required to pay the State Government the costs of housing, feeding, and educating the child until such time as they are placed in a home, or they reach the age of majority.

Does that sound good to you?

Who are the people complaining about "welfare" and "SNAP", Democrats or Republicans? Who are the people who continuously post stats about "the Blacks" and welfare, Democrats or Republicans?

I agree that they should be place in pre-screened homes for adoption. Those proposed laws don't bother me at all because my mindset is that you take care of something that you bring into this world. I think that "deadbeat Dads (and Moms)" , should be held accountable and made to pay for the "States'" upkeep of their children.
That said, some people will find abortion an easier alternative.

The stats are generally posted after some lib says, "There are more whites on welfare than blacks." And really, Who cares? Statistics aren't racist.
Blacks are roughly 6 times as likely as whites to commit murder and to be on welfare.
FACTS!
Facts are not racist regardless of whether or not they're politically correct.

 

[Pheonixops]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

You can find conservative Republicans who say they don't want to, or is this just you making shit up?

Because conservative Republicans just want to save the babies and then leave them laying in the gutters outside the hospital.

Here is an idea....All children who need a home should be expedited and the bureaucracy removed in placing them in homes. Then, laws should be written that if the two biological parents create a life they don't want, they both should be required to pay the State Government the costs of housing, feeding, and educating the child until such time as they are placed in a home, or they reach the age of majority.

Does that sound good to you?

Who are the people complaining about "welfare" and "SNAP", Democrats or Republicans? Who are the people who continuously post stats about "the Blacks" and welfare, Democrats or Republicans?

I agree that they should be place in pre-screened homes for adoption. Those proposed laws don't bother me at all because my mindset is that you take care of something that you bring into this world. I think that "deadbeat Dads (and Moms)" , should be held accountable and made to pay for the "States'" upkeep of their children.
That said, some people will find abortion an easier alternative.

The stats are generally posted after some lib says, "There are more whites on welfare than blacks." And really, Who cares? Statistics aren't racist.
Blacks are roughly 6 times as likely as whites to commit murder and to be on welfare.
FACTS!
Facts are not racist regardless of whether or not they're politically correct.

Well, that's a DUMB argument when one does it per capita..........................

 

[Ernie S.]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

You can find conservative Republicans who say they don't want to, or is this just you making shit up?

Because conservative Republicans just want to save the babies and then leave them laying in the gutters outside the hospital.

Here is an idea....All children who need a home should be expedited and the bureaucracy removed in placing them in homes. Then, laws should be written that if the two biological parents create a life they don't want, they both should be required to pay the State Government the costs of housing, feeding, and educating the child until such time as they are placed in a home, or they reach the age of majority.

Does that sound good to you?

Who are the people complaining about "welfare" and "SNAP", Democrats or Republicans? Who are the people who continuously post stats about "the Blacks" and welfare, Democrats or Republicans?

I agree that they should be place in pre-screened homes for adoption. Those proposed laws don't bother me at all because my mindset is that you take care of something that you bring into this world. I think that "deadbeat Dads (and Moms)" , should be held accountable and made to pay for the "States'" upkeep of their children.
That said, some people will find abortion an easier alternative.

The stats are generally posted after some lib says, "There are more whites on welfare than blacks." And really, Who cares? Statistics aren't racist.
Blacks are roughly 6 times as likely as whites to commit murder and to be on welfare.
FACTS!
Facts are not racist regardless of whether or not they're politically correct.

Well, that's a DUMB argument when one does it per capita..........................

And it needs to be pointed out.

 

[Truth2Know]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Vigilante: This is a fantastic, well written argument. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Vigilante]

In a pigmentocracy one's skin color can be a disadvantage. But back to my original question: "Do the conservative Republicans want to take care of the unwanted children after they are born?" Or are they complaining about "the Blacks on welfare" and "welfare queens"?

It’s a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)

Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).

Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Vigilante: This is a fantastic, well written argument. Thanks for sharing.

Please C&P it, and pass it around so all the BABY KILLERS can digest their murders!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You know what determines the value of a black life?



The person under the black skin

 

[thanatos144]

The most dangerous place for a black person is in the womb

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Unless they're not born yet and of course if they ruin them via their own actions.


Anyone else sick of this RIDICULOUS slogan?


Mug a cop & get shot? Idgaf. Your problem.

Yep,

 

[American_Jihad]

 

[basquebromance]

 

[American_Jihad]

You wish, ok photo/shop, is that you???

 

[thanatos144]

You wish, ok photo/shop, is that you???

Dude it is a cardboard cut out lol

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[American_Jihad]

You wish, ok photo/shop, is that you???

Dude it is a cardboard cut out lol

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Is that you, LOL...