Liberals On Abortion

[Jake Winker Frogen]

" Eros Infatuated With Itself "

* Inconsequential To Ethical Or Legal Standards *

I agree the Pro Choice people can be extremely irrational, for instance I think their argument a conceived life is not a life until we say it is one is not only irrational but has other dubious moral side effects.

The issue is whether and when a wright to life becomes an interest of the state as a state is comprised of citizens and for citizens , and as citizens must be born then birth is a requirement for equal protection .

When life begins has nothing to do with the law or ethics of abortion ; however , the reich wants any edge to continue its facade that it represents the rule of law in the abortion issue .

Their ploy is an attempt to force those defending abortion to concede that a life is being terminated and proceed to denigrate or coerce others into accepting their own oblation from conception and contention to amend the law .

The hue mammon ape wields indiscriminate suffering upon sentient beings out of convenience beyond measure , and yet the gluttonous damned dirty apes seek to hold themselves above others creature out of vain conceit in want for an exception for those of itself not yet capable of sentience or suffering , as without penance !

Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

* Any Excuse Would Be An Unacceptable Answer For The Religious Reich *

Just admit it is a life but some time taking a life is allowed for the greater good.

There is not a problem in making that declaration , it is implicit .

* Whack A Doodles *

But the Pro Life people can be just as irrational, even on rare occasion terrorism and murder.

Myopia and a uniform fetish are part of egoism .

The concept of when a life begins is a core question as to what abortion actually is, is it taking a life or not?

It is both an ethical and politically necessary question to understand just what abortion is.

Now from a non political point of view, a scientific point of view life is considered to begin at conception in a species, humans are not different being primates.

So it is a life, just not perhaps a person, which is a concept of both individual and social identity, and it is not a citizen accorded the same rights as a citizen unless the legal and political structures accord it that status, citizenship being legal and not a scientific concept.

This is where the political battle begins, when should that life be accorded rights and protections under the law, at what stage in it's development?

 

[ding]

" Gluttonous Damned Dirty Apes "

* One Wing Spiraling Into Peril *

Do the right thing the right way for the right reason.
150 years from now they will look back on your support in horror.

The antinomian hypocrites of the religious reich can go fuck themselves .

Do the correct thing for the correct reason in the correct way .

Right and left are directions and not ethical standards , witless troll .

Is this an example of you doing the correct thing, the correct way for the correct reason?

 

[ding]

" Nothing New To See Here "

* Mocking The Shadow Puppets Cast By Those Mired In Mudd *

Thanks for proving me correct.

As what , a poorly informed sycophant lacking an attention span feigning a pretentious guise of success for a lost and idiotic cause ?

You seem angry.

 

[ding]

I think perhaps the best argument against abortion is that no proponent of abortion ever says, hey, I had one or hey, I would get one.

No, what you hear proponents of abortion say is that they would never get one themselves.

I can't think of a stronger argument against abortion than proponents of abortion recoiling from the thought of having had one or getting one.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Broadening Narrow Perspectives For The Meaning of Life "

* Choices In The Direction Of Life *

The concept of when a life begins is a core question as to what abortion actually is, is it taking a life or not?

The issue about life is that the meaning of an after life is a metaphor for literaly passing on ones genetic identity through ones offspring , one haploid at a time , so that another , both figuratively and literally as ones self , may experience life in a similar manner as ones self .

The accountability for who , what , where , when and how an after life occurs is an individual responsibility and not a decision to be dictated by an authoritarian state .

* Sentience Is Ethical But Propaganda Is Political *

It is both an ethical and politically necessary question to understand just what abortion is.

Individuals know what abortion is , they do not need help in having it explained to them or by being harangued from myopic fools with a uniform fetish to quell their anxiety about mortality and who do not have the slightest clue or personal involvement in it .

* Which Is The Best Direction Fore Self Two Own *

Now from a non political point of view, a scientific point of view life is considered to begin at conception in a species, humans are not different being primates.

Life began before conception and , if by fate , it will continue after conception .

The meaning of an after life as the passing on ones genetic identity did not change , and the issue is that individuals are entitled and obligated to best determine their own fate towards an after life , should they choose it .

* Science Is Applied In State Law *

So it is a life, just not perhaps a person, which is a concept of both individual and social identity, and it is not a citizen accorded the same rights as a citizen unless the legal and political structures accord it that status, citizenship being legal and not a scientific concept.

The issue is legal with respect to the state , and science is used to qualify the constitutional criteria of viability and to qualify an ethical criteria of sentience onset .

* Validity Of Ethical Arguments Are Decided By Empathy *

This is where the political battle begins, when should that life be accorded rights and protections under the law, at what stage in it's development?

The " political battle " is well understood , but the constitutional and ethical basis for elective abortion are well established ; however , so is public ignorance about the constitutional and ethical basis for elective abortion .

 

[Jake Winker Frogen]

The definition of life is not a shroom tap dance into a philosophical question, it is a matter of science.

What we do with life, how we protect it, or kill it, is a political, legal and social question.

And history reveals humans will never always agree on when to kill and when not to?

That is the real question. Fault line.

The pro life people want to protect that life at any cost, the pro choice feel some times it is justified to kill it for a greater social purpose.

The former argument is tainted by an inability to see other considerations such as mental state of the mother or their often unwillingness to support social programs for such life born.

The latter argument is tainted by an inability to face honestly what is being done, killing. Perhaps for a greater good, perhaps not, but it is killing.

 

[JoeB131]

Roe vs Wade.....one of the most poorly decided Supreme Court cases, and one of the best examples of judicial activism: In no way is this decision based on the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade, a ruling that tried to reflect reality, but didn't account for the religious nuts needing a fake issue to get their flocks upset.

Here was the reality in 1973. Women were getting abortions at their OB/GYN office, and the doctors were writing down something else on their charts. Insurance paid the claims and no one thought twice about it.

Eight years earlier, SCOTUS struck down the equally silly contraception laws in Griswold v. Connecticut. No one really thought this was controversial. No one screamed about "judicial activism". The law kept up with the technology when effective contraception started coming on the market.

The split on Roe was 7-2, the same as it was on Griswold. Of the seven who voted for Roe, FIVE were appointed by Nixon and Eisenhower. This wasn't a political issue. It was merely getting rid of laws that didn't reflect reality.

So what happened? Well, before Roe, the Evangelicals didn't consider Abortion a serious issue. They considered it a "Catholic Thing". (And the Catholics treated it like "eating meat on lent" kind of sin. Five Hail Marys and throw some money at us.) Then the Evangelicals realized they needed a new political issue, now that segregation wasn't really selling anymore down in Jesusland.

SO RIDDLE ME THIS. Since Roe. Republicans have appointed 10 SCOTUS justices compared to four appointed by Democrats. If this was the most important moral issue of our time, as you seem to think it is, why is it that most of those Republican justices concurred with their predecessors and agreed that Roe was a good decision?

Because the last thing that the GOP actually wants is Roe to be overturned. It would mobilize millions of women who won't be too keen on retroactively branded "Murderers".

( I don't expect the Mail Order Bride From Hell to actually answer this or even think about it very hard, as she probably won't be able to find a cut and paste response. )

 

[JoeB131]

The concept of when a life begins is a core question as to what abortion actually is, is it taking a life or not?

It is both an ethical and politically necessary question to understand just what abortion is.

Now from a non political point of view, a scientific point of view life is considered to begin at conception in a species, humans are not different being primates.

So it is a life, just not perhaps a person, which is a concept of both individual and social identity, and it is not a citizen accorded the same rights as a citizen unless the legal and political structures accord it that status, citizenship being legal and not a scientific concept.

This is where the political battle begins, when should that life be accorded rights and protections under the law, at what stage in it's development?

Not at all. It is a political question, what kind of society are we willing to have to impose your moral beliefs.

The reality is, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant. No matter how many times you show her pictures of aborted fetuses and scream "JESUS" at her.

So you will have one of two things.

1) A bunch of laws that women will ignore, that will probably endanger at least some of them. They already have this in the Philippines, where they have exactly the kind of laws you want, but women are still getting lots and lots of abortions. More per capita than the US.

2) You will need to establish a police state that will control people's lives. Good luck with that. Look at all the grumbling we are getting now just asking people to wear masks so they don't catch a disease that will probably kill them. Could you imagine the kind of state you would need to enforce the kind of abortion laws you want? Medical privacy? Forget about it. Inform the police when you buy a pregnancy test, and investigate every miscarriage as a homicide. DOn't trust her OB/GYN's word, that guy was probably performing abortions before we banned them!

 

[JoeB131]

Say it with me. . .


FETAL

HOMICIDE

LAWS.

Say it with me... crap laws that are already being challenged and struck down. Just ask Purvi Patel.

Don't want to talk about Poor Purvi, do you.... how you nuts tried to use these laws to persecute a woman who had a miscarriage.

 

[JoeB131]

"The roe v wade decision is 100% consistent with us constitution and is 100% ethical ."
If I ever needed a brain transplant I’d want yours….’cause I’d want one that had never been used.

Watch how easy it is to prove you a dunce......Article 1, section 8 enumerates the authorized powers of the government.

See if you can show where Row v Wade fits.

....it's not the weather being discussed when you hear folks refer to 'twenty below...' It's your IQ.

The Foundation of Roe and Griswold were found in the 14th Amendment.

For nearly 50 years, REPUBLICAN courts have upheld them.

 

[beautress]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

How romantic coming from the guy who swiped up on Indiana Jones for a moniker.

 

[beautress]

"The roe v wade decision is 100% consistent with us constitution and is 100% ethical ."
If I ever needed a brain transplant I’d want yours….’cause I’d want one that had never been used.

Watch how easy it is to prove you a dunce......Article 1, section 8 enumerates the authorized powers of the government.

See if you can show where Row v Wade fits.

....it's not the weather being discussed when you hear folks refer to 'twenty below...' It's your IQ.

The Foundation of Roe and Griswold were found in the 14th Amendment.

For nearly 50 years, REPUBLICAN courts have upheld them.

What is this, more "sweet nothings" day from Mr. JoeB131 the Bloviator?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Roe vs Wade.....one of the most poorly decided Supreme Court cases, and one of the best examples of judicial activism: In no way is this decision based on the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade, a ruling that tried to reflect reality, but didn't account for the religious nuts needing a fake issue to get their flocks upset.

Here was the reality in 1973. Women were getting abortions at their OB/GYN office, and the doctors were writing down something else on their charts. Insurance paid the claims and no one thought twice about it.

Eight years earlier, SCOTUS struck down the equally silly contraception laws in Griswold v. Connecticut. No one really thought this was controversial. No one screamed about "judicial activism". The law kept up with the technology when effective contraception started coming on the market.

The split on Roe was 7-2, the same as it was on Griswold. Of the seven who voted for Roe, FIVE were appointed by Nixon and Eisenhower. This wasn't a political issue. It was merely getting rid of laws that didn't reflect reality.

So what happened? Well, before Roe, the Evangelicals didn't consider Abortion a serious issue. They considered it a "Catholic Thing". (And the Catholics treated it like "eating meat on lent" kind of sin. Five Hail Marys and throw some money at us.) Then the Evangelicals realized they needed a new political issue, now that segregation wasn't really selling anymore down in Jesusland.

SO RIDDLE ME THIS. Since Roe. Republicans have appointed 10 SCOTUS justices compared to four appointed by Democrats. If this was the most important moral issue of our time, as you seem to think it is, why is it that most of those Republican justices concurred with their predecessors and agreed that Roe was a good decision?

Because the last thing that the GOP actually wants is Roe to be overturned. It would mobilize millions of women who won't be too keen on retroactively branded "Murderers".

( I don't expect the Mail Order Bride From Hell to actually answer this or even think about it very hard, as she probably won't be able to find a cut and paste response. )

As I said, there is no validation of the decision in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The roe v wade decision is 100% consistent with us constitution and is 100% ethical ."
If I ever needed a brain transplant I’d want yours….’cause I’d want one that had never been used.

Watch how easy it is to prove you a dunce......Article 1, section 8 enumerates the authorized powers of the government.

See if you can show where Row v Wade fits.

....it's not the weather being discussed when you hear folks refer to 'twenty below...' It's your IQ.

The Foundation of Roe and Griswold were found in the 14th Amendment.

For nearly 50 years, REPUBLICAN courts have upheld them.

Nonsesne.

There are no 'penumbras' except for liars and Liberals......is that redundant?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The entire Republican idea is "every life is meaningful, until it is born then we do not give a shit."

The entire Democrat idea is "Assert my opinion as fact so that I don't have to deal with the topic."

Hold your breath waiting for ANYONE to get defensive about not having your approval, moron.

To the contrary, I find your disapproval boosts my self esteem and general happiness.

I don't know what's more breathtaking: your unintentional irony or your massive tone-deafness and hypocrisy.

Probably both in equal measure, I am a balanced guy like that.

Still the US abortion debate, as I outlined is a polarised irrational mess, both sides.

But then most American political discourse is these days.

And whose fault is that? I won't say there are some dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen anything BUT that from the pro-aborts. Even the ones who try to play at being calm and rational are still parroting talking points with their fingers in their ears.

And while we're on the subject, it's the pro-aborts that are utterly and completely unwilling to compromise on the subject. They won't even countenance the "infringement" of safety regulations on abortion clinics that are completely standard in any other medical facility you care to name. Hell, as far as I can tell, they refuse to consider the same level of safety regulations that are standard in tattoo parlors.

I agree the Pro Choice people can be extremely irrational, for instance I think their argument a conceived life is not a life until we say it is one is not only irrational but has other dubious moral side effects.

Just admit it is a life but some time taking a life is allowed for the greater good.

But the Pro Life people can be just as irrational, even on rare occasion terrorism and murder.

Excuse me, but trying to equate the entire pro-life side of the debate with a handful of rare lunatics is also irrational, not to mention dishonest. Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, "Bernie Sanders supporters are irrational, even on rare occasions murder and assassination" just because one Sanders-supporting nutjob decided to shoot him some Congressmembers?

There is a lot of irrational discourse writ large on the Pro Life side too, you cannot see it because your flag is planted squarely on that side.

I approach the issue not committed to either side but rather social utility balanced by ethics.

There are no easy answers on this as banning it will not end it but only see it conducted in worse conditions, if history be our guide yet making it too easy or not admitting it is a grave decision also probably increases the number of abortions.

This whole "having a discussion" thing works a lot better when you're responding to my words, rather than those of the self-flattering voices in your head saying what you wish I had said. I started out by saying that there were dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side. Yet here you are, preening yourself on how fair and unbiased you are because I "cannot see the irrational discourse on the pro-life side", because apparently, you just can't deal with a discussion where the other person isn't vehemently defending every single person who is nominally pro-life.

We'll just mark this post of yours as an epic fail and a waste of everyone's time, and you can try again with a response to my actual words, if you like. Or I can just write you off as another slogan-shouting asshead who's part of the problem while imagining he's the solution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The definition of life is not a shroom tap dance into a philosophical question, it is a matter of science.

What we do with life, how we protect it, or kill it, is a political, legal and social question.

And history reveals humans will never always agree on when to kill and when not to?

That is the real question. Fault line.

The pro life people want to protect that life at any cost, the pro choice feel some times it is justified to kill it for a greater social purpose.

The former argument is tainted by an inability to see other considerations such as mental state of the mother or their often unwillingness to support social programs for such life born.

The latter argument is tainted by an inability to face honestly what is being done, killing. Perhaps for a greater good, perhaps not, but it is killing.

No, I'm sorry, we're not "tainted by the inability to see other considerations". We see them just fine . . . and then we reject them because killing someone because it stresses and depresses you for them to be alive is evil and sociopathic.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that people are ignoring your "rational" choice not because they aren't as brilliant as you, but because they aren't serial killers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The entire Republican idea is "every life is meaningful, until it is born then we do not give a shit."

The entire Democrat idea is "Assert my opinion as fact so that I don't have to deal with the topic."

Hold your breath waiting for ANYONE to get defensive about not having your approval, moron.

To the contrary, I find your disapproval boosts my self esteem and general happiness.

I don't know what's more breathtaking: your unintentional irony or your massive tone-deafness and hypocrisy.

Probably both in equal measure, I am a balanced guy like that.

Still the US abortion debate, as I outlined is a polarised irrational mess, both sides.

But then most American political discourse is these days.

And whose fault is that? I won't say there are some dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen anything BUT that from the pro-aborts. Even the ones who try to play at being calm and rational are still parroting talking points with their fingers in their ears.

And while we're on the subject, it's the pro-aborts that are utterly and completely unwilling to compromise on the subject. They won't even countenance the "infringement" of safety regulations on abortion clinics that are completely standard in any other medical facility you care to name. Hell, as far as I can tell, they refuse to consider the same level of safety regulations that are standard in tattoo parlors.

I agree the Pro Choice people can be extremely irrational, for instance I think their argument a conceived life is not a life until we say it is one is not only irrational but has other dubious moral side effects.

Just admit it is a life but some time taking a life is allowed for the greater good.

But the Pro Life people can be just as irrational, even on rare occasion terrorism and murder.

Excuse me, but trying to equate the entire pro-life side of the debate with a handful of rare lunatics is also irrational, not to mention dishonest. Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, "Bernie Sanders supporters are irrational, even on rare occasions murder and assassination" just because one Sanders-supporting nutjob decided to shoot him some Congressmembers?

There is a lot of irrational discourse writ large on the Pro Life side too, you cannot see it because your flag is planted squarely on that side.

I approach the issue not committed to either side but rather social utility balanced by ethics.

There are no easy answers on this as banning it will not end it but only see it conducted in worse conditions, if history be our guide yet making it too easy or not admitting it is a grave decision also probably increases the number of abortions.

This whole "having a discussion" thing works a lot better when you're responding to my words, rather than those of the self-flattering voices in your head saying what you wish I had said. I started out by saying that there were dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side. Yet here you are, preening yourself on how fair and unbiased you are because I "cannot see the irrational discourse on the pro-life side", because apparently, you just can't deal with a discussion where the other person isn't vehemently defending every single person who is nominally pro-life.

We'll just mark this post of yours as an epic fail and a waste of everyone's time, and you can try again with a response to my actual words, if you like. Or I can just write you off as another slogan-shouting asshead who's part of the problem while imagining he's the solution.

Well handled.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The entire Republican idea is "every life is meaningful, until it is born then we do not give a shit."

The entire Democrat idea is "Assert my opinion as fact so that I don't have to deal with the topic."

Hold your breath waiting for ANYONE to get defensive about not having your approval, moron.

To the contrary, I find your disapproval boosts my self esteem and general happiness.

I don't know what's more breathtaking: your unintentional irony or your massive tone-deafness and hypocrisy.

Probably both in equal measure, I am a balanced guy like that.

Still the US abortion debate, as I outlined is a polarised irrational mess, both sides.

But then most American political discourse is these days.

And whose fault is that? I won't say there are some dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen anything BUT that from the pro-aborts. Even the ones who try to play at being calm and rational are still parroting talking points with their fingers in their ears.

And while we're on the subject, it's the pro-aborts that are utterly and completely unwilling to compromise on the subject. They won't even countenance the "infringement" of safety regulations on abortion clinics that are completely standard in any other medical facility you care to name. Hell, as far as I can tell, they refuse to consider the same level of safety regulations that are standard in tattoo parlors.

I agree the Pro Choice people can be extremely irrational, for instance I think their argument a conceived life is not a life until we say it is one is not only irrational but has other dubious moral side effects.

Just admit it is a life but some time taking a life is allowed for the greater good.

But the Pro Life people can be just as irrational, even on rare occasion terrorism and murder.

Excuse me, but trying to equate the entire pro-life side of the debate with a handful of rare lunatics is also irrational, not to mention dishonest. Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, "Bernie Sanders supporters are irrational, even on rare occasions murder and assassination" just because one Sanders-supporting nutjob decided to shoot him some Congressmembers?

There is a lot of irrational discourse writ large on the Pro Life side too, you cannot see it because your flag is planted squarely on that side.

I approach the issue not committed to either side but rather social utility balanced by ethics.

There are no easy answers on this as banning it will not end it but only see it conducted in worse conditions, if history be our guide yet making it too easy or not admitting it is a grave decision also probably increases the number of abortions.

This whole "having a discussion" thing works a lot better when you're responding to my words, rather than those of the self-flattering voices in your head saying what you wish I had said. I started out by saying that there were dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side. Yet here you are, preening yourself on how fair and unbiased you are because I "cannot see the irrational discourse on the pro-life side", because apparently, you just can't deal with a discussion where the other person isn't vehemently defending every single person who is nominally pro-life.

We'll just mark this post of yours as an epic fail and a waste of everyone's time, and you can try again with a response to my actual words, if you like. Or I can just write you off as another slogan-shouting asshead who's part of the problem while imagining he's the solution.

Well handled.

Thank you. I swear, sometimes I spend more time discussing the fact that they're trying to put words in my mouth than I do discussing the actual topic. God forbid anyone respond to the actual post by the actual person, instead of just playing out the script for the "debate triumph" that they've imagined.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The entire Republican idea is "every life is meaningful, until it is born then we do not give a shit."

The entire Democrat idea is "Assert my opinion as fact so that I don't have to deal with the topic."

Hold your breath waiting for ANYONE to get defensive about not having your approval, moron.

To the contrary, I find your disapproval boosts my self esteem and general happiness.

I don't know what's more breathtaking: your unintentional irony or your massive tone-deafness and hypocrisy.

Probably both in equal measure, I am a balanced guy like that.

Still the US abortion debate, as I outlined is a polarised irrational mess, both sides.

But then most American political discourse is these days.

And whose fault is that? I won't say there are some dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen anything BUT that from the pro-aborts. Even the ones who try to play at being calm and rational are still parroting talking points with their fingers in their ears.

And while we're on the subject, it's the pro-aborts that are utterly and completely unwilling to compromise on the subject. They won't even countenance the "infringement" of safety regulations on abortion clinics that are completely standard in any other medical facility you care to name. Hell, as far as I can tell, they refuse to consider the same level of safety regulations that are standard in tattoo parlors.

I agree the Pro Choice people can be extremely irrational, for instance I think their argument a conceived life is not a life until we say it is one is not only irrational but has other dubious moral side effects.

Just admit it is a life but some time taking a life is allowed for the greater good.

But the Pro Life people can be just as irrational, even on rare occasion terrorism and murder.

Excuse me, but trying to equate the entire pro-life side of the debate with a handful of rare lunatics is also irrational, not to mention dishonest. Would you consider it reasonable for me to say, "Bernie Sanders supporters are irrational, even on rare occasions murder and assassination" just because one Sanders-supporting nutjob decided to shoot him some Congressmembers?

There is a lot of irrational discourse writ large on the Pro Life side too, you cannot see it because your flag is planted squarely on that side.

I approach the issue not committed to either side but rather social utility balanced by ethics.

There are no easy answers on this as banning it will not end it but only see it conducted in worse conditions, if history be our guide yet making it too easy or not admitting it is a grave decision also probably increases the number of abortions.

This whole "having a discussion" thing works a lot better when you're responding to my words, rather than those of the self-flattering voices in your head saying what you wish I had said. I started out by saying that there were dogmatic slogan-shouters on the pro-life side. Yet here you are, preening yourself on how fair and unbiased you are because I "cannot see the irrational discourse on the pro-life side", because apparently, you just can't deal with a discussion where the other person isn't vehemently defending every single person who is nominally pro-life.

We'll just mark this post of yours as an epic fail and a waste of everyone's time, and you can try again with a response to my actual words, if you like. Or I can just write you off as another slogan-shouting asshead who's part of the problem while imagining he's the solution.

Well handled.

Thank you. I swear, sometimes I spend more time discussing the fact that they're trying to put words in my mouth than I do discussing the actual topic. God forbid anyone respond to the actual post by the actual person, instead of just playing out the script for the "debate triumph" that they've imagined.

Government schooling doesn't prepare them.

 

[ColonelAngus]

My favorite is DEVOUT Catholic Pelosi who is pro baby murder.