It's Nothing Personal....Just Business

[B. Kidd]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

"It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

Perhaps we should have recognized it far earlier....



Democrat FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


And he knew of the genocidal actions of the Soviets.

And for the next 70 years, the Democrat Party was the best friend and supporter of the Soviets, communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, 'Democratic Socialists, whatever.....



That's what's so amusing about the Democrats claim that the Russians wanted Trump as President.

You so conveniently forgot the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. Case in point, the best year for the working class Americans was 1956 under the Union supporting Republicans.

The Russians did help tRump get elected, after all, he married a Russian, and her card carrying communist Father has an all-access pass.

"the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. "

There is a one-question IQ test....Did the Democrats begin to love their former slaves and did the Republicans who freed the slaves start to wish they had slaves....in the 60s?????


You failed, dunce.


This is the most transparent of lies, of propaganda meant to hide the racism of the Democrat party.....and you bought it like it was on sale.



Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.


Yet they do....or claim they do.


Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)


Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK, they claim that circa 1960, while the Democrats suddenly had an epiphany, and saw the error of their ways.....the Republicans suddenly developed a hatred of blacks and a desire for segregation.


Yes....many of the dimwits actually claim that.

Hard to imagine that they believe it...but they claim it.



The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

Tanya Selvaratnam and Eric SchneidermanGetty Images

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.”
https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

Bad individuals come in all flavors. Doesn't in any way negate my post.

I destroyed your stupid claim that Republicans became the racists that Democrat have always been.

The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.




The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.

Always.

It's called a 'political plantation'.
Not a physical one, but a very, very mental one.

 

[B. Kidd]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology"

Which detailed the problems with conservatism in beating down the middle class.

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

 

[OnePercenter]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

"It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

Perhaps we should have recognized it far earlier....



Democrat FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


And he knew of the genocidal actions of the Soviets.

And for the next 70 years, the Democrat Party was the best friend and supporter of the Soviets, communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, 'Democratic Socialists, whatever.....



That's what's so amusing about the Democrats claim that the Russians wanted Trump as President.

You so conveniently forgot the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. Case in point, the best year for the working class Americans was 1956 under the Union supporting Republicans.

The Russians did help tRump get elected, after all, he married a Russian, and her card carrying communist Father has an all-access pass.

"the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. "

There is a one-question IQ test....Did the Democrats begin to love their former slaves and did the Republicans who freed the slaves start to wish they had slaves....in the 60s?????


You failed, dunce.


This is the most transparent of lies, of propaganda meant to hide the racism of the Democrat party.....and you bought it like it was on sale.



Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.


Yet they do....or claim they do.


Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)


Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK, they claim that circa 1960, while the Democrats suddenly had an epiphany, and saw the error of their ways.....the Republicans suddenly developed a hatred of blacks and a desire for segregation.


Yes....many of the dimwits actually claim that.

Hard to imagine that they believe it...but they claim it.



The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

Tanya Selvaratnam and Eric SchneidermanGetty Images

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.”
https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

Bad individuals come in all flavors. Doesn't in any way negate my post.

I destroyed your stupid claim that Republicans became the racists that Democrat have always been.

The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.




The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.

Always.

It's so sad that you are of the mistaken belief that if you bang the drum for the right they'll somehow carry you ahead. What you should be asking yourself; How much financial credit do I have?

 

[OnePercenter]

Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas.

"Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas."


Democrats should stop murdering innocent human beings.




Out of a deep curiosity, which of these is your reason for support of abortion?

a. Your desire to have an unrestricted ability to kill those human beings that represent an inconvenience to your lifestyle….almost 100% of abortions are simply for convenience, and nothing else.

b. The ease of abortion as post sexual congress birth-control?

c. As obeisance to the dark forces that the Judeo-Christian faith has battled for eons?

d. Or simply a moral malaise, finding it too much of a burden to have any sense of responsibility for your own actions….the actions that produced that baby?

e. The mistaken belief that the unborn is a part of the mother's body, and not a separate, unique human being?

Women have the right to control their own bodies.

Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas.

"Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas."


Democrats should stop murdering innocent human beings.




Out of a deep curiosity, which of these is your reason for support of abortion?

a. Your desire to have an unrestricted ability to kill those human beings that represent an inconvenience to your lifestyle….almost 100% of abortions are simply for convenience, and nothing else.

b. The ease of abortion as post sexual congress birth-control?

c. As obeisance to the dark forces that the Judeo-Christian faith has battled for eons?

d. Or simply a moral malaise, finding it too much of a burden to have any sense of responsibility for your own actions….the actions that produced that baby?

e. The mistaken belief that the unborn is a part of the mother's body, and not a separate, unique human being?

Women have the right to control their own bodies.

"Women have the right to control their own bodies."



Is there any subject.....ANY....about which you know anything???????


The fetus is not her body, you moron.


There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Sooooo.....you're on the battin' end of a no-hitter, huh?

Advancing misogyny one post at a time.

Clearly you couldn't find any way to deny the facts I posted: the fetus is not her body.


Just admit you suffer from terminal indoctrination.

Because theologians tell you so? $1.2T bilk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology"

Which detailed the problems with conservatism in beating down the middle class.

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

No need for me to shred this post......everyone can see the result of the Trump economy.


Get lost, dunce.

 

[OnePercenter]

1). Abortion should be outlawed
2). Pro life doesn't end at birth. Funding for the child should continue and follow the unwanted child until it's in a stable home. $20,000 dollars per year per family taking care of the child is a start.
3). Abstinence should be emphasized.
4). Contraception needs to be pushed on all young people. Not going to have kids? A brave and courageous choice. Go get what america is all about...the $.

What about in the case of health issues for the Mom?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

Perhaps we should have recognized it far earlier....



Democrat FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


And he knew of the genocidal actions of the Soviets.

And for the next 70 years, the Democrat Party was the best friend and supporter of the Soviets, communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, 'Democratic Socialists, whatever.....



That's what's so amusing about the Democrats claim that the Russians wanted Trump as President.

You so conveniently forgot the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. Case in point, the best year for the working class Americans was 1956 under the Union supporting Republicans.

The Russians did help tRump get elected, after all, he married a Russian, and her card carrying communist Father has an all-access pass.

"the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. "

There is a one-question IQ test....Did the Democrats begin to love their former slaves and did the Republicans who freed the slaves start to wish they had slaves....in the 60s?????


You failed, dunce.


This is the most transparent of lies, of propaganda meant to hide the racism of the Democrat party.....and you bought it like it was on sale.



Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.


Yet they do....or claim they do.


Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)


Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK, they claim that circa 1960, while the Democrats suddenly had an epiphany, and saw the error of their ways.....the Republicans suddenly developed a hatred of blacks and a desire for segregation.


Yes....many of the dimwits actually claim that.

Hard to imagine that they believe it...but they claim it.



The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

Tanya Selvaratnam and Eric SchneidermanGetty Images

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.”
https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

Bad individuals come in all flavors. Doesn't in any way negate my post.

I destroyed your stupid claim that Republicans became the racists that Democrat have always been.

The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.




The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.

Always.

It's so sad that you are of the mistaken belief that if you bang the drum for the right they'll somehow carry you ahead. What you should be asking yourself; How much financial credit do I have.

Why are you concerned as to how rich I am?


You don't.


You're simply attempting to move the spotlight off the beating I've given you.



You can leave any time.

 

[OnePercenter]

"It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

Perhaps we should have recognized it far earlier....



Democrat FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


And he knew of the genocidal actions of the Soviets.

And for the next 70 years, the Democrat Party was the best friend and supporter of the Soviets, communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, 'Democratic Socialists, whatever.....



That's what's so amusing about the Democrats claim that the Russians wanted Trump as President.

You so conveniently forgot the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. Case in point, the best year for the working class Americans was 1956 under the Union supporting Republicans.

The Russians did help tRump get elected, after all, he married a Russian, and her card carrying communist Father has an all-access pass.

"the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. "

There is a one-question IQ test....Did the Democrats begin to love their former slaves and did the Republicans who freed the slaves start to wish they had slaves....in the 60s?????


You failed, dunce.


This is the most transparent of lies, of propaganda meant to hide the racism of the Democrat party.....and you bought it like it was on sale.



Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.


Yet they do....or claim they do.


Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)


Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK, they claim that circa 1960, while the Democrats suddenly had an epiphany, and saw the error of their ways.....the Republicans suddenly developed a hatred of blacks and a desire for segregation.


Yes....many of the dimwits actually claim that.

Hard to imagine that they believe it...but they claim it.



The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

Tanya Selvaratnam and Eric SchneidermanGetty Images

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.”
https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

Bad individuals come in all flavors. Doesn't in any way negate my post.

I destroyed your stupid claim that Republicans became the racists that Democrat have always been.

The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.




The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.

Always.

It's called a 'political plantation'.
Not a physical one, but a very, very mental one.

"Plantation?" Really. Next you'll be spouting "you people."

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology".

Perhaps we should have recognized it far earlier....



Democrat FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


And he knew of the genocidal actions of the Soviets.

And for the next 70 years, the Democrat Party was the best friend and supporter of the Soviets, communists, Bolsheviks, Marxists, 'Democratic Socialists, whatever.....



That's what's so amusing about the Democrats claim that the Russians wanted Trump as President.

You so conveniently forgot the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. Case in point, the best year for the working class Americans was 1956 under the Union supporting Republicans.

The Russians did help tRump get elected, after all, he married a Russian, and her card carrying communist Father has an all-access pass.

"the ideology of Republicans and Democrats changed in the 60's. "

There is a one-question IQ test....Did the Democrats begin to love their former slaves and did the Republicans who freed the slaves start to wish they had slaves....in the 60s?????


You failed, dunce.


This is the most transparent of lies, of propaganda meant to hide the racism of the Democrat party.....and you bought it like it was on sale.



Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.


Yet they do....or claim they do.


Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)


Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK, they claim that circa 1960, while the Democrats suddenly had an epiphany, and saw the error of their ways.....the Republicans suddenly developed a hatred of blacks and a desire for segregation.


Yes....many of the dimwits actually claim that.

Hard to imagine that they believe it...but they claim it.



The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.

Tanya Selvaratnam and Eric SchneidermanGetty Images

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.”
https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

https://nypost.com/2018/05/07/ex-sc...lave-would-slap-me-until-i-called-him-master/

Bad individuals come in all flavors. Doesn't in any way negate my post.

I destroyed your stupid claim that Republicans became the racists that Democrat have always been.

The pretense is eminently simple to disprove.


Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points, reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.




And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.




The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.

Always.

It's called a 'political plantation'.
Not a physical one, but a very, very mental one.

You probably read it....

Her point, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas."


Democrats should stop murdering innocent human beings.




Out of a deep curiosity, which of these is your reason for support of abortion?

a. Your desire to have an unrestricted ability to kill those human beings that represent an inconvenience to your lifestyle….almost 100% of abortions are simply for convenience, and nothing else.

b. The ease of abortion as post sexual congress birth-control?

c. As obeisance to the dark forces that the Judeo-Christian faith has battled for eons?

d. Or simply a moral malaise, finding it too much of a burden to have any sense of responsibility for your own actions….the actions that produced that baby?

e. The mistaken belief that the unborn is a part of the mother's body, and not a separate, unique human being?

Women have the right to control their own bodies.

"Republicans should keep their hands out of women's vaginas."


Democrats should stop murdering innocent human beings.




Out of a deep curiosity, which of these is your reason for support of abortion?

a. Your desire to have an unrestricted ability to kill those human beings that represent an inconvenience to your lifestyle….almost 100% of abortions are simply for convenience, and nothing else.

b. The ease of abortion as post sexual congress birth-control?

c. As obeisance to the dark forces that the Judeo-Christian faith has battled for eons?

d. Or simply a moral malaise, finding it too much of a burden to have any sense of responsibility for your own actions….the actions that produced that baby?

e. The mistaken belief that the unborn is a part of the mother's body, and not a separate, unique human being?

Women have the right to control their own bodies.

"Women have the right to control their own bodies."



Is there any subject.....ANY....about which you know anything???????


The fetus is not her body, you moron.


There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

11. No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?


Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

Sooooo.....you're on the battin' end of a no-hitter, huh?

Advancing misogyny one post at a time.

Clearly you couldn't find any way to deny the facts I posted: the fetus is not her body.


Just admit you suffer from terminal indoctrination.

Because theologians tell you so? $1.2T bilk.

Stop lying.

I eviscerated every one of your posts.....with nothing about theology.


Just admit you're a moron....that's who you are.

 

[OnePercenter]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology"

Which detailed the problems with conservatism in beating down the middle class.

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

If you have any evidence that dispels my post.....bring it on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

If you have any evidence that dispels my post.....bring it on.

'Dispel' means to make disappear...you idiot.


You mean 'disproves.'


And......I did. Every single one.

 

[B. Kidd]

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

If you have any evidence that dispels my post.....bring it on.

Since you don't see the world as it really is, but only HOW you really are, and can only speak for yourself; it appears that your credit has run out!

 

[OnePercenter]

It was predicted in a book written in the early 70's, titled "The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology"

Which detailed the problems with conservatism in beating down the middle class.

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

No need for me to shred this post......everyone can see the result of the Trump economy.


Get lost, dunce.

Really? You should check with the trucking industry. The people that bring you all of your shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

No need for me to shred this post......everyone can see the result of the Trump economy.


Get lost, dunce.

Really? You should check with the trucking industry. The people that bring you all of your shit.

Post without the juvenile vulgarity and I may honor you with a response.

 

[B. Kidd]

How so?
How does freedom "beat down the middle class," you dunce????


The Founders, classical liberals, conservatives
a. individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


Fascists, Nazis, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists
b. the collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.


None of the totalitarian forms of political plague have the slightest concern for human life: not communism (gulags), not Nazism (concentration camps), not Liberalism (abortion), not Progressivism (eugenics), not socialism (theft), not fascism (murder).

They all follow Trotsky: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."
As do you.



" Franklin Roosevelt had pictured a place where citizens were joined in a collective enterprise ... Reagan pictured a more individualistic America where everyone would flourish once freed from the shackles of the state, and so the watchwords became self-reliance and small government."
The Liberal Crackup

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

If you have any evidence that dispels my post.....bring it on.

No wonder that you support dolts that promise 'free shit'; like paying for your student loans, healthcare, abortions, etc., etc..
Stuff that were your bad choices, and no one else!

 

[White 6]

Sharing the very same attitude toward human life, these two entities support each other.

That would be Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party


1. "New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years
...Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015."
New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years




2. "Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide
The abortion giant Planned Parenthood will pour at least $45 million into the 2020 election to push pro-abortion Democrats to power.

Hoping to defeat President Donald Trump and retake the U.S. Senate, the abortion chain announced its “biggest electoral effort in history” this week, CBS News reports."
Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide




Know who else says 'only business....'???

The NRA should receive funding.

Apparently it does get funding, linked to government, but it is the Russian Government.
NRA admits accepting money from 23 Russia-Linked donors

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sharing the very same attitude toward human life, these two entities support each other.

That would be Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party


1. "New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years
...Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015."
New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years




2. "Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide
The abortion giant Planned Parenthood will pour at least $45 million into the 2020 election to push pro-abortion Democrats to power.

Hoping to defeat President Donald Trump and retake the U.S. Senate, the abortion chain announced its “biggest electoral effort in history” this week, CBS News reports."
Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide




Know who else says 'only business....'???

The NRA should receive funding.

Apparently it does get funding, linked to government, but it is the Russian Government.
NRA admits accepting money from 23 Russia-Linked donors

How many babies did you say the NRA aborts?

 

[OnePercenter]

What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?

"What makes you believe that the middle class has freedom today?"

Short answer: because no Democrat is President.

Democrats are pro raising working Americans wages. Republicans against.

In the great scheme of things, that's all that matters to you. Conservative values have reduced you down from middle class, to poor with credit, thus limiting your freedom.

Today's hierarchy (from bottom to top)

Poor
Poor with credit
Rich
Wealthy

When you reach your credit limit, you become poor.

Speak for yourself........

If you have any evidence that dispels my post.....bring it on.

No wonder that you support dolts that promise 'free shit'; like paying for your student loans, healthcare, abortions, etc., etc..
Stuff that were your bad choices, and no one else!

"Post without the juvenile vulgarity and I may honor you with a response." Sorry I couldn't resist. You wouldn't want to piss off cross-dressing Chic.

The "free shit" that corporate America takes is much more than social and most is funneled out of the country.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sharing the very same attitude toward human life, these two entities support each other.

That would be Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party


1. "New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years
...Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015."
New Report Shows Planned Parenthood Raked in $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Funds Over 3 Years




2. "Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide
The abortion giant Planned Parenthood will pour at least $45 million into the 2020 election to push pro-abortion Democrats to power.

Hoping to defeat President Donald Trump and retake the U.S. Senate, the abortion chain announced its “biggest electoral effort in history” this week, CBS News reports."
Planned Parenthood Will Spend $45 Million to Elect Radical Abortion Activists Nationwide




Know who else says 'only business....'???

The NRA should receive funding.

Apparently it does get funding, linked to government, but it is the Russian Government.
NRA admits accepting money from 23 Russia-Linked donors

How many babies did you say the NRA aborts?

30,000 each year in retro active abortions.