The two parties opposite agendas

[Immanuel]

Immie, The right dominates TV too...

There is a reason Planned Parenthood and NOW accuse their opponents of doing evil things...because they DO evil things. How many abortion doctors need to be murdered or how many clinics shut down? In some states, even though abortion is 'legal' there are no clinics. * In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. ref

ALL THIS is done in the name of life???


Anti-abortion violence

United States

The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Murders

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

* August 21, 1993 Dr. George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.

* July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International, was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.

Attempted murder, assault, and threats

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

* August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

* July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

* December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

* October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

* January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

* May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

Anthrax threats

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

* November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. More recent incidents have included:

* December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.

* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.

* September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

* September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

* January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's cut to the chase Immie. You can 'claim' conservatives are being falsely portrayed on their intentions for Welfare, Social Security, Medicare etc, but the truth is there would be no Welfare, Social Security, Medicare if it wasn't for liberals and Democrats. Please provide ANY human services conservatives or Republicans ever advocated for, lobbied for, wrote legislation for or stood up for...there is none Immie.

Okay, well, I can see this is going no where. We go around and around in circles and accomplish nothing. You are wrong in your beliefs, bfgrn, and when you are willing to open your mind to the truth, I suspect you will discover that.

How many millions of people have abortion providers killed? Why ignore that number?

Why do we have those programs? Why, because those programs are used by liberals to control the masses. Someday you will understand the truth of that statement.

When you really want to learn how real conservatives think, feel free to ask. I offer my open arms in friendship and the willingness to be honest with you about how I feel about certain issues. I can guarantee that it is nothing like you perceive. /salute and good bye for now.
Immie

You see we're going no where and I am wrong? Don't you really mean I won't submit to you and your beliefs Immie? And then you have the temerity and audacity to tell me to open up my mind? WOW!

So killing doctors, nurses, fire bombing clinics and using intimidation and threats to close down clinics and scare women away from using them is OK by conservatives. Because even though the law says abortion is legal, the law is wrong and conservatives are right. And because conservatives don't kill doctors and nurses by the the millions it's really not so bad. And liberals are just lying when they say they support a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus and her life. Liberals only do is to control the masses.

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

No, my friend, I mean you are wrong. That should be easy enough to understand.

No where did I say that killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable. Never have said that and never will.

You are blinded by your hatred, Bfgrn. When you decide to grow up, I am certain you will discover that.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, well, I can see this is going no where. We go around and around in circles and accomplish nothing. You are wrong in your beliefs, bfgrn, and when you are willing to open your mind to the truth, I suspect you will discover that.

How many millions of people have abortion providers killed? Why ignore that number?

Why do we have those programs? Why, because those programs are used by liberals to control the masses. Someday you will understand the truth of that statement.

When you really want to learn how real conservatives think, feel free to ask. I offer my open arms in friendship and the willingness to be honest with you about how I feel about certain issues. I can guarantee that it is nothing like you perceive. /salute and good bye for now.
Immie

You see we're going no where and I am wrong? Don't you really mean I won't submit to you and your beliefs Immie? And then you have the temerity and audacity to tell me to open up my mind? WOW!

So killing doctors, nurses, fire bombing clinics and using intimidation and threats to close down clinics and scare women away from using them is OK by conservatives. Because even though the law says abortion is legal, the law is wrong and conservatives are right. And because conservatives don't kill doctors and nurses by the the millions it's really not so bad. And liberals are just lying when they say they support a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus and her life. Liberals only do is to control the masses.

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

No, my friend, I mean you are wrong. That should be easy enough to understand.

No where did I say that killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable. Never have said that and never will.

You are blinded by your hatred, Bfgrn. When you decide to grow up, I am certain you will discover that.

Immie

Immie, you didn't directly 'say' killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable, instead you made a false analogy and turned a legal medical procedure into murder. That gives a backhand justification to the actions of real murderers. That is not what adults do. So I have to restate:

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

 

[rdean]

Everything I've said I've backed up with data and evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger.

If conservatives were into evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, more than 6% of our scientists would be Republicans. You yourself know this to be true.

so do those Ghettos filled up with the minorities that you guys keep there under the guise of HELPING them

And yet, Republicans don't help them at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it.

Everything I've said I've backed up with data and evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger.

bullfucking shit im still waiting for the link were you stated ALL Republicans want the Gays Killed.......how they want the Blacks and Latinos GONE.....how they ALL want do away with Science......your links are USUALLY from the FAR Right Dean or the Christian Conservative Right or just some fucking FAR Right lunatic.....never from the MAJORITY of Republicans who are probably not as Radical or on the liberal side of Conservatism.....oh wait thats right....to a Jackoff like you...they dont exist.....


If conservatives were into evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, more than 6% of our scientists would be Republicans. You yourself know this to be true.

im sure there are many scientist out there Dean who lean toward Conservatism but dont care for the Republican Party....so they dont identify with them so they might vote with the Dems.....that could change overnight if the Republican party starts becoming more moderate.....then what the fuck are you going to do?....no more 6% jokes for the rest of us....

And yet, Republicans don't help them at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it.

well at least you agree the Democrats use those people for their own agenda.....and can care less about them....

I love the way your kind debates. I was waiting for it and you fulfilled my expectations. You add in a few words and then suddenly, you "win" the debate. Just by making "Republicans" "ALL Republicans", suddenly, in your tiny mind, you "won". But I never said "ALL Republicans". But that's OK because, since I never said "I'm not saying ALL Republicans", then I must mean ALL Republicans, right? See how easy that was? No real thought. No facing the issues. Just make it up and you "win".

Well, we're not going to let you get off so easy.

First off, YOU said, "never from the MAJORITY of Republicans who are probably not as Radical".

Probably not as Radical? Did you really say that? Probably? See, you're not even sure yourself.

Then you said, "im sure there are many scientist out there Dean who lean toward Conservatism but dont care for the Republican Party". The same Pew Poll said that only 9% of scientists were conservative. 6% Republican and 9% conservative.

Think about what it means to be a "conservative" as opposed to being a "scientist". Conservatives want to "conserve". To keep things from changing. To "stop". Scientists are all about exploration, leaning new things. Understanding. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between science and conservatism.

And speaking about the poor, how you got, "well at least you agree the Democrats use those people (the poor) for their own agenda.....and can care less about them...." out of, "And yet, Republicans don't help them (poor people) at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it." is beyond me. It's almost like you picked out a Buick from a bag of oranges. It makes that much sense.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I love the way your kind debates. I was waiting for it and you fulfilled my expectations. You add in a few words and then suddenly, you "win" the debate. Just by making "Republicans" "ALL Republicans", suddenly, in your tiny mind, you "won". But I never said "ALL Republicans". But that's OK because, since I never said "I'm not saying ALL Republicans", then I must mean ALL Republicans, right? See how easy that was? No real thought. No facing the issues. Just make it up and you "win".

Well, we're not going to let you get off so easy.

First off, YOU said, "never from the MAJORITY of Republicans who are probably not as Radical".

Probably not as Radical? Did you really say that? Probably? See, you're not even sure yourself.

Then you said, "im sure there are many scientist out there Dean who lean toward Conservatism but dont care for the Republican Party". The same Pew Poll said that only 9% of scientists were conservative. 6% Republican and 9% conservative.

Think about what it means to be a "conservative" as opposed to being a "scientist". Conservatives want to "conserve". To keep things from changing. To "stop". Scientists are all about exploration, leaning new things. Understanding. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between science and conservatism.

And speaking about the poor, how you got, "well at least you agree the Democrats use those people (the poor) for their own agenda.....and can care less about them...." out of, "And yet, Republicans don't help them (poor people) at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it." is beyond me. It's almost like you picked out a Buick from a bag of oranges. It makes that much sense.

I love the way your kind debates.

what kind is that Dean?.....

But I never said "ALL Republicans"

your not fooling anyone here Dean.....when you say Republicans..you mean ALL REPUBLICANS.....Geezus how many times have you stated A Republican is a Republican?.....you yourself have said there are no liberal or Moderates....everyone of them Fuckers are like the Texas Party....they all walk lockstep....your words not mine.....your History here Dean is in writing you cant change it because you dont want anyone to think your a one sided asshole....your too late.....

Probably not as Radical?

yea....just like most people on the Left are PROBABLY not as radical as you are.....and that is something everyone in the Country can be glad about....

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between science and conservatism

a Scientist can be a very Conservative individual and still be a Scientist who believes in Exploration.....for you not to get that just shows another one of your Stereotypes....


And speaking about the poor, how you got, "well at least you agree the Democrats use those people (the poor) for their own agenda.....and can care less about them...." out of, "And yet, Republicans don't help them (poor people) at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it." is beyond me. It's almost like you picked out a Buick from a bag of oranges. It makes that much sense.

because you never contested what i said in the earlier post.....DUH.....

and we both know the Democrats dont give a rats ass about the poor,its all about appearance with you people......"hey we are with ya.....but just dont move in next door"......

 

[Annie]

Simply because the two parties have differing philosophies, does not mean that one cares and the other does not.

In the case of unemployment, Liberals/Dems think that they are helping the unemployed by keeping them unemployed and sending them small checks twice a month. Conservatives/Republicans think that they help more by showing tough love and making the unemployed get off their asses and get back to work.

That being said, I don't really think any of the politicians really give a rat's ass about the rest of us, all they care about is convincing enough of us to vote for their side and the power they achieve when we do.

Immie

Immie, what is the root word in unemployed? It means they HAD a job. The fact that they don't is not because they are lazy or anything they did. Currently there is ONE job for every five people unemployed. What do we do for the FOUR?

It seems that many on the board haven't a clue to what's going on today. I've known Immie for a long time, like me he's quite educated. Like me, he's been unemployed. He seems to have been able to save more than me while working, but that's to be expected, I've been a single mom for over 12 years, never breaking $35k. Some of that was circumstances, some hearing disability, some wrong choices on my part.

With that said, I have been working over the past month and a half. If I can pull full days, 5 days a week I net $400 a week. After taxes, about $20 more than unemployment. Yet, that's what I do. Not because unemployment is charity, it's not. My employer, thus myself paid for it. However, I'm very aware of weeks used.

This week? One district was off all week, so no subs needed, obviously. The other, school Monday and Tuesday, but only available was Latin, no way! So, I'll file for another week of unemployment. It's considered a 'new app.' The first week I crossed the limit, they counted as 'employed' for stats. That used not to be the case. Games are being played with stats, no surprise.

I've applied for over 200 part-time jobs, that would work with subbing. Not one taker, I'm too educated. I'm desperate for more income, I'm likely to lose my house. Yet, you keep talking about the 'unemployed' many of whom don't want to take a job that won't pay them as much as they were making.

It's unrealistic.

 

[Immanuel]

You see we're going no where and I am wrong? Don't you really mean I won't submit to you and your beliefs Immie? And then you have the temerity and audacity to tell me to open up my mind? WOW!

So killing doctors, nurses, fire bombing clinics and using intimidation and threats to close down clinics and scare women away from using them is OK by conservatives. Because even though the law says abortion is legal, the law is wrong and conservatives are right. And because conservatives don't kill doctors and nurses by the the millions it's really not so bad. And liberals are just lying when they say they support a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus and her life. Liberals only do is to control the masses.

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

No, my friend, I mean you are wrong. That should be easy enough to understand.

No where did I say that killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable. Never have said that and never will.

You are blinded by your hatred, Bfgrn. When you decide to grow up, I am certain you will discover that.

Immie

Immie, you didn't directly 'say' killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable, instead you made a false analogy and turned a legal medical procedure into murder. That gives a backhand justification to the actions of real murderers. That is not what adults do. So I have to restate:

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

The sad and terrible thing is that you have proven my point about liberals who spoil their children. You have proven yourself to be intolerant and hate-filled of anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone of your posts in this discussion have been on that line even when offered friendship.

I said nothing at all about abortion being murder. You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right, yet, you excuse it because through it you control women. I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry. You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children because by doing so, liberals control women.

Edit: Remember the discussion of framing? Abortion is one of those examples where liberals have far exceeded conservatives in the ability to frame their opponents argument. "If you don't vote for us, then conservatives will take away your right to choose." Liberal framing at its worst!

God Bless You.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

No, my friend, I mean you are wrong. That should be easy enough to understand.

No where did I say that killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable. Never have said that and never will.

You are blinded by your hatred, Bfgrn. When you decide to grow up, I am certain you will discover that.

Immie

Immie, you didn't directly 'say' killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable, instead you made a false analogy and turned a legal medical procedure into murder. That gives a backhand justification to the actions of real murderers. That is not what adults do. So I have to restate:

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

The sad and terrible thing is that you have proven my point about liberals who spoil their children. You have proven yourself to be intolerant and hate-filled of anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone of your posts in this discussion have been on that line even when offered friendship.

I said nothing at all about abortion being murder. You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right, yet, you excuse it because through it you control women. I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry. You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children because by doing so, liberals control women.

Edit: Remember the discussion of framing? Abortion is one of those examples where liberals have far exceeded conservatives in the ability to frame their opponents argument. "If you don't vote for us, then conservatives will take away your right to choose." Liberal framing at its worst!

God Bless You.

Immie

WOW Immie, you are taking projection to a new level. Your post screams intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you.

You say: 'I said nothing at all about abortion being murder'

Then in the very next sentence you say: 'You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right'

You say: 'I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry'

Then in the very next sentence you say: ' You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children'

So what you're saying very clearly is: my view on abortion is wrong and yours is right. THAT is tolerance Immie?

Then, you have the audacity to tell ME what MY motives are...' yet, you excuse it because through it you control women'... 'because by doing so, liberals control women'

To me, tolerance is supporting someone's right to SELF determination, even if their choices would be different from mine or even directly opposed to mine. And control is dictating what someone's personal choice must be, not for that person's benefit, but for your own benefit.

I believe a woman has the right to choose what's best for HER, not best for me. I don't advocate for abortion, but I do advocate for someone's right to SELF determination. It's HER body and HER life, not mine. The reality is: You are the one who wants to control women by forcing them to conform to your beliefs and by forcing them to bear a child for 9 months.

You have proven Lakoff's 'strict father' is way too complimentary. The proper term is the traditional and widely accepted one: authoritarian.

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you didn't directly 'say' killing doctors, nurses, security personnel or patients of clinics was acceptable, instead you made a false analogy and turned a legal medical procedure into murder. That gives a backhand justification to the actions of real murderers. That is not what adults do. So I have to restate:

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.

The sad and terrible thing is that you have proven my point about liberals who spoil their children. You have proven yourself to be intolerant and hate-filled of anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone of your posts in this discussion have been on that line even when offered friendship.

I said nothing at all about abortion being murder. You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right, yet, you excuse it because through it you control women. I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry. You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children because by doing so, liberals control women.

Edit: Remember the discussion of framing? Abortion is one of those examples where liberals have far exceeded conservatives in the ability to frame their opponents argument. "If you don't vote for us, then conservatives will take away your right to choose." Liberal framing at its worst!

God Bless You.

Immie

WOW Immie, you are taking projection to a new level. Your post screams intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you.

You say: 'I said nothing at all about abortion being murder'

Then in the very next sentence you say: 'You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right'

You say: 'I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry'

Then in the very next sentence you say: ' You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children'

So what you're saying very clearly is: my view on abortion is wrong and yours is right. THAT is tolerance Immie?

Then, you have the audacity to tell ME what MY motives are...' yet, you excuse it because through it you control women'... 'because by doing so, liberals control women'

To me, tolerance is supporting someone's right to SELF determination, even if their choices would be different from mine or even directly opposed to mine. And control is dictating what someone's personal choice must be, not for that person's benefit, but for your own benefit.

I believe a woman has the right to choose what's best for HER, not best for me. I don't advocate for abortion, but I do advocate for someone's right to SELF determination. It's HER body and HER life, not mine. The reality is: You are the one who wants to control women by forcing them to conform to your beliefs and by forcing them to bear a child for 9 months.

You have proven Lakoff's 'strict father' is way too complimentary. The proper term is the traditional and widely accepted one: authoritarian.

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

For probably your last ten posts you have done nothing but attempt to insult me. Talk about intolerance? That is your M.O.

It is obvious what your motives are. Your motives are to control women. It is evident to everyone that follows the abortion debate. Liberals want to control the votes of women. Only blind partisans such as yourself refuse to admit it.

It has been you that have been the intolerant person in this discussion. You have refused to accept anything that I have said in this discussion and you simply keep rambling on with your untruths.

To me, tolerance is supporting someone's right to SELF determination, even if their choices would be different from mine or even directly opposed to mine.

Funny, that is a decent definition of tolerance, and yet you have consistently attacked my viewpoints and me as a person for about the last ten posts. You sure know how to display liberal intolerance and hatred of those you do not agree with.

The only thing I have proven about Lakoff is that he is a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

Funny, your Oscar Wilde quote describes your attitude through out this thread.

God Bless You and Happy Thanksgiving.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

The sad and terrible thing is that you have proven my point about liberals who spoil their children. You have proven yourself to be intolerant and hate-filled of anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone of your posts in this discussion have been on that line even when offered friendship.

I said nothing at all about abortion being murder. You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right, yet, you excuse it because through it you control women. I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry. You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children because by doing so, liberals control women.

Edit: Remember the discussion of framing? Abortion is one of those examples where liberals have far exceeded conservatives in the ability to frame their opponents argument. "If you don't vote for us, then conservatives will take away your right to choose." Liberal framing at its worst!

God Bless You.

Immie

WOW Immie, you are taking projection to a new level. Your post screams intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you.

You say: 'I said nothing at all about abortion being murder'

Then in the very next sentence you say: 'You excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings by saying that it is a legal procedure. Being legal in no means makes it right'

You say: 'I never once justified the killing of anyone involved in the abortion industry'

Then in the very next sentence you say: ' You on the other hand, justify the killing of unborn children'

So what you're saying very clearly is: my view on abortion is wrong and yours is right. THAT is tolerance Immie?

Then, you have the audacity to tell ME what MY motives are...' yet, you excuse it because through it you control women'... 'because by doing so, liberals control women'

To me, tolerance is supporting someone's right to SELF determination, even if their choices would be different from mine or even directly opposed to mine. And control is dictating what someone's personal choice must be, not for that person's benefit, but for your own benefit.

I believe a woman has the right to choose what's best for HER, not best for me. I don't advocate for abortion, but I do advocate for someone's right to SELF determination. It's HER body and HER life, not mine. The reality is: You are the one who wants to control women by forcing them to conform to your beliefs and by forcing them to bear a child for 9 months.

You have proven Lakoff's 'strict father' is way too complimentary. The proper term is the traditional and widely accepted one: authoritarian.

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

For probably your last ten posts you have done nothing but attempt to insult me. Talk about intolerance? That is your M.O.

It is obvious what your motives are. Your motives are to control women. It is evident to everyone that follows the abortion debate. Liberals want to control the votes of women. Only blind partisans such as yourself refuse to admit it.

It has been you that have been the intolerant person in this discussion. You have refused to accept anything that I have said in this discussion and you simply keep rambling on with your untruths.

To me, tolerance is supporting someone's right to SELF determination, even if their choices would be different from mine or even directly opposed to mine.

Funny, that is a decent definition of tolerance, and yet you have consistently attacked my viewpoints and me as a person for about the last ten posts. You sure know how to display liberal intolerance and hatred of those you do not agree with.

The only thing I have proven about Lakoff is that he is a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

Funny, your Oscar Wilde quote describes your attitude through out this thread.

God Bless You and Happy Thanksgiving.

Immie

Immie, you say that I 'excuse the killing of more than 50 million human beings' and I 'justify the killing of unborn children' and YOU are indignant? The reason my definition of tolerance is decent is because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I BELIEVE. But you say I am a liar, and YOU are indignant.