a whore for the republican party

[TomO]

are you mad?

Furious :chuckle:

 

[republicanchick]

a whore for the republican party

that is what they called me

should be taken as a compliment (despite the word Whore being a little much, admittedly)

you ought to see what i am called..

"You will be hated by all" said our Savior

(Republicans are usually Christian or at least wannabes)

 

[republicanchick]

the democrats do want to replace the family with a village
today is mother's day
how do we keep the mother and baby together?
with a father
for the stupid you must supply the answer to every question

some fathers don't want to be there 4 their kids

best advise to women: do not have sex with anyone. Heck even a husband can abandon you..

 

[Town Heretic]

...That one candidate being Barack Hussein Obama,

The first time yes and the second time no. But you said party supporting. Just not the case.

someone who throughout his political career has been adamantly and unapologetically pro abortion. Surely you knew that when you cast your ballot?

I knew that both candidates from both major parties supported abortion to one extent or another and that neither of them were going to undo Roe. That will take a large sea change and one that's been happening, slowly but surely.

"More murdery or less murdery"? (You have to hand it to Town Heretic, he does some up with some good ones). Are you aware that Adolf Hitler and his SS thugs were"less murdery" than the pro abortion Democratic Party? (20 million vs 58 million).

Either you're a murderer or you're not. A man who only murders his family isn't more virtuous than a serial killer who murders a dozen strangers.

Now to take on your wrong headed lump sum, the Democratic Party is comprised of people who in no small number differ on any number or particular things, just as they do in the Republican Party. As I've noted there's a pro life wing in the Democratic Party and democrats have been responsible for voting for and helping achieve different restrictive measures relating to abortions, just as some republicans have opposed them.

Also, the party's error isn't the same one Hitler made. Hitler actively sought, persecuted and murdered whole peoples. Those in the Democratic Party who support Roe support the right of women to make a determination for themselves. That right, while meaningless absent abortion, isn't inherently an exercise that ends in abortion.

I think they're wrong, that human right must be recognized from conception and have advanced a purely secular and rational argument in support of that, but even so what you lay at the feet of even those within the party who actively support reproductive rights isn't a parallel with Hitler in any real manner.

That being said: Murder is not a conservative value, so the SCOTUS ruling didn't come from conservative republicans.

Ah, the latest application of the No True Scott gambit. Well, you're wrong. Republicans gave us that Court. Rationalize it however you will.

How often do the six of you get together?

That's just ignorant. Like I told chrys, look at the elected votes republicans got from democrats on the very measures he trumpets in restricting abortions. Necessary votes. Then look at that organization I told someone to Google. Or just keep doing this and looking ill informed. Up to you really.

We are talking about the same political party that booed God at their last political convention aren't we?

The whole party was there, were they? And you polled everyone on their feeling/action? Silly stuff and nonsense.

But since "most of your votes have gone to the opposition", we really shouldn't even be arguing about the "Party of death" should we TH?

We aren't really. You're making a great many factually deficient accusations, name calling (like when you called me a liar then completely whiffed on noting a single factually untrue statement among the points I made when challenged) and I've been patiently trying to bring you to a more reasoned position.

Lie all that you want Town Heretic

Yes, you said that. And I challenged you to support that with a single instance. You didn't.

Lying to yourself is the worst lie of all.

Supra and/or apparently you would know. Because when you write that and can't support it you have reason to know you're not being objectively honest and failing to own that, let alone repeating the specious nonsense, is actually and demonstrably dishonest.

But it's your character to do with what you will.

continue to try and make people believe that there is no big difference between the two major parties or it's candidates, but we both know differently.

So you said. And I answered on that notion that wasn't mine. You're just wrong. Repeatedly, loudly wrong.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
...That one candidate being Barack Hussein Obama,

The first time yes and the second time no. But you said party supporting. Just not the case.

Then we can agree that those who support the Democratic Party (as seen in their long history of supporting abortion in their platform) are pro abortion?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4313314&postcount=150


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
someone who throughout his political career has been adamantly and unapologetically pro abortion. Surely you knew that when you cast your ballot?

I knew that both candidates from both major parties supported abortion to one extent or another and that neither of them were going to undo Roe. That will take a large sea change and one that's been happening, slowly but surely.

John McCain on abortion:

•Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
•Voted YES on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
•Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
•Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
•Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
•Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
•Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
•Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
•Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
•Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
•Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
•Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
•Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
•Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
•Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm

I'd stick around and chat TH, but I've had enough of your lies for now.

 

[Town Heretic]

...Then we can agree that those who support the Democratic Party (as seen in their long history of supporting abortion in their platform) are pro abortion?

No. We can agree that more often than not democrats support the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses, within the constraints of the law. And we should agree that there are a good many democrats who oppose the party plank. Some of them even vote on the House and Senate floors, as is objectively established in the voting record anyone who wants can look up.

John McCain on abortion:

John McCain supported abortion rights in the case of rape or incest. That's also a matter of public record.

McCain was asked whether he would reinstate the Reagan era rule that prevents international family planning clinics that receive federal funds from discussing abortion. “I don’t believe they should advocate abortion with my tax dollars,” McCain said, adding that he opposed abortion except in cases of rape and incest. He was then asked how he would determine whether someone had in fact been raped. McCain responded, “I think that I would give the benefit of the doubt to the person who alleges that.” New York Times, p. A17 , Jan 25, 2000​

I'd stick around and chat TH, but I've had enough of your lies for now.

I thought you'd do this sort of thing again and run, but as I noted repeatedly, you have yet to publish a single quote from me that is objectively untrue. Not a one.

John McCain would not (to note Chry's mistaken fancy) support using abortion positions on the part of a S. Ct. Justice as a litmus for voting them in or denying them the bench:

Q: Could you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on Roe v. Wade?
McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I’ve been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That’s not appropriate to do.

Q: Even if it was someone who had a history of being for abortion rights?
McCAIN: I would consider anyone on their qualifications. Someone who has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.​

John McCain doesn't believe in federal control of the abortion issue:

McCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. Third presidential debate against Barack Obama , Oct 15, 2008​

And:

In 2006, McCain wrote a letter to the National Right to Life Committee stating, "I share our common goal of reducing the staggering number of abortions currently performed in this country and overturning the Roe v. Wade decision." Then, at a small rally, he told the crowd, "I believe life begins at conception." But then he went on: "We cannot impose a litmus test on the issue." Free Ride, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, p.165 , Mar 25, 2008​

Like I said, both parties were putting up candidates with less than acceptable ideas on the subject.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
...Then we can agree that those who support the Democratic Party (as seen in their long history of supporting abortion in their platform) are pro abortion?

No. We can agree that more often than not democrats support the right of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses, within the constraints of the law. And we should agree that there are a good many democrats who oppose the party plank. Some of them even vote on the House and Senate floors, as is objectively established in the voting record anyone who wants can look up.

One would think that if a good many democrats oppose the party plank of abortion on demand, that after 42 years they would have changed the party platform or left the Democratic Party (that is if abortion were really that important to them, which it's not).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
John McCain on abortion:

John McCain supported abortion rights in the case of rape or incest. That's also a matter of public record:

If abortion were allowed only in the case of incest or rape, of the 1.2 million surgical abortions per year in the US, how many abortions would there be?

12,000.

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/

(For those of you that aren't good at math, that would mean that 1,188,000 unborn babies lives would have been saved yearly if Republican John McCain would have been elected President and the people who voted him in held him up to his campaign promises).

What can I say other than the Democratic Party is the party of death.

 

[Town Heretic]

One would think that if a good many democrats oppose the party plank of abortion on demand, that after 42 years they would have changed the party platform or left the Democratic Party (that is if abortion were really that important to them, which it's not).

You'd think when a majority of democrats are opposed to the idea the plank will change. No one, least of all me, said that was where we find ourselves. What I've opposed was your and chrys one mindset fits all approach because it's factually deficient.

If abortion were allowed only in the case of incest or rape, of the 1.2 million surgical abortions per year in the US, how many abortions would there be?

12,000.

How many abortions are okay? One? Fifteen? A million? And is it more moral if you only kill twelve people as opposed to a hundred? Are you? Is your party?

Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html
http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/

In that year it would have meant about 16,000 abortions. 16,000 abortions John McCain would have been just fine with.

(For those of you that aren't good at math, that would mean that 1,188,000 unborn babies lives would have been saved yearly if Republican John McCain would have been elected President and the people who voted him in held him up to his campaign promises).

No, John McCain wouldn't have saved those babies. His belief, while better than the president but insufficient in relation to a pure pro life stance, wouldn't have actually become law or overturned Roe. And if his ideas became law it would simply kick the issue to the states, where the worst offenders (like California and New York) would likely continue uninterrupted.

What can I say other than the Democratic Party is the party of death.

You can say something informed and intelligent and true and that isn't it, even within the limited context of abortion. You could say that the party has it wrong, as John has it wrong. And that the goal of people who want to defend life should be to see to it that people continue to get it right, to educate and argue and keep moving that margin toward the preservation of inherent human dignity and life.

Or you could just keep leveling false accusations at people who are trying to actually do that.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One would think that if a good many democrats oppose the party plank of abortion on demand, that after 42 years they would have changed the party platform or left the Democratic Party (that is if abortion were really that important to them, which it's not).

You'd think when a majority of democrats are opposed to the idea the plank will change. No one, least of all me, said that was where we find ourselves. What I've opposed was your and chrys one mindset fits all approach because it's factually deficient.

Again, abortion isn't important to those of you who vote democrat.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If abortion were allowed only in the case of incest or rape, of the 1.2 million surgical abortions per year in the US, how many abortions would there be?

12,000.

How many abortions are okay? One? Fifteen? A million? And is it more moral if you only kill twelve people as opposed to a hundred? Are you? Is your party?

According to the barbarian that you helped elect in 2008, 1.2 million are ok (and we're not even talking about pill induced abortions).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Rape and Incest: Just 1% of All Abortions
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us...abortions.html
http://www.operationrescue.org/about...ns-in-america/

In that year it would have meant about 16,000 abortions. 16,000 abortions John McCain would have been just fine with.

See my above statement about the barbarian you voted for.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
What can I say other than the Democratic Party is the party of death.

You can say something informed and intelligent and true and that isn't it, even within the limited context of abortion.

We could talk about because of the anti family policies of the Demoncratic Party that fatherless homes, abortion, drug use and crime run rampant in the black community.

OR

We could talk about how the Democrats support that absolutely filthy behavior that causes disease misery and early death to many who partake in it.

OR

We could talk about how the Demoncratic Party wants to redefine the most imporant institution that a society has (marriage) and the negative impact that wil have on religious freedom amongst other things.

But then you really don't want to talk about those sort of things do you TH, cuz the truth can be extremely painful.

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, abortion isn't important to those of you who vote democrat.

Again, that's a less than honest bit of declaration on your part. You should just fold tent and find something you can be truthful with in your conviction. This doesn't appear to be it. I've discussed my voting only a post ago.

According to the barbarian that you helped elect in 2008, 1.2 million are ok (and we're not even talking about pill induced abortions).

According to the fellow you would have the states should decide the question and the states where the majority of abortions occur could continue to crank them out.

Or, they're both wrong on the issue.

See my above statement about the barbarian you voted for.

Seen and answered.

We could talk about because of the anti family policies of the Demoncratic Party that fatherless homes, abortion, drug use and crime run rampant in the black community.

You could suggest it, but it's nothing more than your bias filter in play.

OR We could talk about how the Democrats support that absolutely filthy behavior that causes disease misery and early death to many who partake in it.

Some do and some don't, but you have a thread or three for speaking to that issue already.

OR We could talk about how the Demoncratic Party wants to redefine the most imporant institution that a society has (marriage) and the negative impact that wil have on religious freedom amongst other things.

Actually most Americans are okay with striking down laws on the point. Many of them Republicans. Polling on the point has been pro/over 50% for a number of years and it's growing.

The most recent Wall Street Journal poll from March 2015 had it 59%. Other polls this year have had it as high as 63%. And every year that opinion has grown, even in the Republican Party.

I suspect it's more about people recognizing that attempting to impose restrictions based singularly on a particular religious sensibility isn't the best idea for a compact that values the individual's right to conscience and exercise. I suspect the Islamic tendency to attempt to advance Sharia law may have helped that sentiment along.

But then you really don't want to talk about those sort of things do you TH, cuz the truth can be extremely painful.

I don't talk about farming techniques in a physics thread either. Or there was an issue. I made sustained and supported, factual points about the issue. Now you're trying to see how many equally assumptive and likely as factually deficient fires you can start to obscure that and your methodology with a great deal of smoke.

 

[chrysostom]

what you need to know about what you need

1st you need control of the supreme court
2nd you need a republican president
3rd you need a filibuster proof senate
4th you need a republican congress
5th you need republican governors
6th you need a republican controlled legislature

these six links show there is a difference
it cannot be denied

as long as you don't play stupid

 

[republicanchick]

He doesn't seem to get that does he? :nono:

ha ha... how ironic

it is you who don't get it

how the system in this country works. The Supreme Court (for the umpteenth time) is the branch responsible for un-doing Roe v Wade

I can't believe how ignorant some are of the way our government works.

Rs help get abortion overturned by having conservative judges appointed, etc...


___

 

[Town Heretic]

ha ha... how ironic

it is you who don't get it

how the system in this country works. The Supreme Court (for the umpteenth time) is the branch responsible for un-doing Roe v Wade

I can't believe how ignorant some are of the way our government works.

Rs help get abortion overturned by having conservative judges appointed, etc...

I can't believe how people like you and chrys are so willfully ignorant of the history of Court appointments and the resulting precedent.

Well, go on and think that's the way if you like and I'll go on watching the two of you get it wrong while the rational path to ending abortion proceeds without you.

 

[chrysostom]

Rs help get abortion overturned by having conservative judges appointed, etc...

we need conservative judges
and
voting republican is the only way to get them

 

[chrysostom]

same sex marriage is not as important as abortion
but
the kind of judges who gave you abortion
will also give you same sex marriage
so
the only answer is voting republican

Gay rights advocates warn bills would undercut favorable court ruling on same-sex marriage

 

[chrysostom]

the courts want to legislate from the bench
so
let's keep them busy
most of the states are controlled by the republicans
and
they know how to keep them busy
get ready for many more laws
many more challenges
it has already started
soon
they will recognize the monster they have created

 

[Sancocho]

I want this to happen but I doubt it unless another forum away from the US and UN is created that establishes the scientific fact that abortion is homicide. This could happen because many South American countries recognize what science says that life begins at conception. I am currently proposing to create an Orthodox Human Rights Center in Latin America that will undermine the moral authority of Europe, the UN and US in the world, which is necessary for in order to get American to realize abortion is homicide.

I have a meeting next week with an important Catholic University after which I will contact the President of Ecuador, possibly one of the most staunch pro life presidents currently in the world. He will be my point of access to Putin, to convince him to heed The Russian Orthodox's Church's call to ban all abortions. When we have released our first study on the detrimental effects of abortion and the monetary cost I believe we can convince Putin to do this, thus establishing a challenge to the UN and US's moral stance. Please pray for my success.

 

[The Barbarian]

I thought Chrys voted for Romney. The same Romney who pledged to always defend a "woman's right to choose" to kill her unborn child.

Something doesn't quite fit here.

 

[republicanchick]

that.

i cannot take seriously a grown person who is obsessed with Tigger



___

 

[republicanchick]

I thought Chrys voted for Romney. The same Romney who pledged to always defend a "woman's right to choose" to kill her unborn child.

Something doesn't quite fit here.

Is 1 + 1 not 2 anymore?

what part of The Lesser of 2 evils do you not understand??

geez...

i see you have taken up residency in Moron City

you have lots of company there

enjoy


++++