The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Arthur Brain]

.....says the person who worships the most vile, lying, socialist baby-killing president in history, Obama, and wanted an even worse one elected in 2016

Careful dude, you're on the verge of an aneurysm again....

The only people who seem to "worship" presidents are those who can't stand even mild criticism of the current one, aka adulators like you. Otherwise, nobody on here "worships" Obama...

:AMR:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I wouldn't expect this thread to appeal to you, Artie. But you haven't been able to resist proving what I said to be true. The problem is that you're so far out there in LaLa Land you can't see what's so obvious to normal folks.

Most normal folks don't advocate laws that would do away with the constitution and infringe on people's civil liberty. Your buddy JR's posts on this thread would do just that and underscored the importance of having a separation of church and state. If you think that most people in the West want that sorta thing then you really need a reality check. You've had no personal attacks in your direction and have been the one to be snarky and vulgar.

Don't get me wrong, it's been a fun thread in its own way...

 

[eider]

If I say yes are you willing to criminalize all abortion?

Or is the above just a red herring?

No red herring......... if you ever had enough support to legislate against all abortions, would you automatically legislate for free health and education for all children, and free welfare for life for disabled and rape victims, all paid for by the State?
:idunno:

 

[eider]

Why would eider's free welfare for all, regardless of need, stop at adulthood?

Why not just support all citizens from cradle to grave, free food, housing, clothing, entertainment, travel, vacation, education, health care etc?

Why shouldn't other people pay for all of my needs and wants?

Wouldn't that be the best way for eider to demonstrate his compassion for me?

Were you born disabled?
I asked whether or not you would pay out for free welfare for whole life for all persons born disabled....
......... and free for all persons borne through rape.

And free health-care and education for all children to adulthood.

If you're pro-life then you can't stop caring the second after any of these groups are borne, surely?
That would seem to be unhinged....

 

[eider]

we have that in the US already, based on need

define "all wefare expenses"

and would that include children born out of rape to mothers who were financially secure?

...... anything that they need.

regardless of financial need?

Disabled people can need intense day-by-day care. It can cost thousands each week in nursing, equipment, etc etc.

and if I (or society) am unwilling to provide financial support for those particular (and peculiar) classes of citizens, .....................

...If? If? Can we doubt your unwillingness? You're griping already.

and as long as I mentioned "citizens", why should my financial responsibility end with my citizens? Shouldn't I be required to financially support all chlidren, wherever they may be on the planet?

But you don't have any vote or choice is the legislation of other countries..... just your own.

eider - how much money do you personally send to impoverished children in Guatemala, Somalia, Chile, bangladesh, blackpool...?

The Sally-Army sends my donations where it sees fit to do so.

Now........ would you support disabled and rape-victim children for life? Would you support all children to adulthood in your country? A straight yes or no would be helpful, rather than casting around and struggling like a hooked carp.

 

[ok doser]

......... if you ever had enough support to legislate against all abortions, would you automatically legislate for free health and education for all children...

if we (as a country) did, what would we be buying?


would we be buying the right to legislate behaviors, especially behavior that would lead to unwanted children?

 

[ok doser]

Were you born disabled?

yes, i was, as were both of my children

I asked whether or not you would pay out for free welfare for whole life for all persons born disabled....
......... and free for all persons borne through rape.

we already do, as a country, for all of those persons in financial need, whether they were born disabled or the result of a rape

if it came to a vote, i would vote for it

so my answer is "yes"

And free health-care and education for all children to adulthood.

same thing

If you're pro-life then you can't stop caring the second after any of these groups are borne, surely?

i can't imagine why you would think i would stop caring for any child, regardless of their "group" after they're born

 

[glorydaz]

Watch the haters zoom in with their personal attacks. opcorn:

Still, sorry for the lack of personal attacks on my part.

It was a silly thing to say and your descriptors for being a "leftist" were equally so and unsustainable. Ill thought out and so stereotyped as to be cliche.

Still, at least you weren't on the receiving end of a bunch of childish insults as you anticipated.

It was an observation. Like many religious zealots, you lack or display anything resembling love, compassion or empathy but cold and callous judgement.



Oh, and typical of the zealous little fundamentalist, he latches onto a bit of text from the OT to justify his putrid attitude towards his fellow beings who just don't happen to be straight. Not only that, you have to accentuate how you'd have to "protect" yourself while killing them. You know nothing about love or compassion at all. Just another crackpot.





you're just an indoctrinated, naive and callous kid.

There'd be no need to kill an animal victim to prevent that you dopey little nut. Your username is as ironic as it gets.

Crank.

Eh, that little sadact still wasting time

Just a small sample of how the libs don't partake in personal attacks. opcorn:

 

[glorydaz]

Most normal folks don't advocate laws that would do away with the constitution and infringe on people's civil liberty. Your buddy JR's posts on this thread would do just that and underscored the importance of having a separation of church and state. If you think that most people in the West want that sorta thing then you really need a reality check. You've had no personal attacks in your direction and have been the one to be snarky and vulgar.

Don't get me wrong, it's been a fun thread in its own way...

Of course, Artie. You're innocent and I'm guilty. You aren't snarky, but I am. You aren't vulgar with all your talk of the normalcy of homosexuality, and I'm vulgar for daring to say the word "poop". A normal bodily function is vulgar but homosexual acts are not.

The danger is claiming good is evil and evil is good, and that's what you leftists do with everything.

 

[eider]

if we (as a country) did, what would we be buying?


would we be buying the right to legislate behaviors, especially behavior that would lead to unwanted children?

Hedging....... back pedaling........ prevaricating.....
What I was looking for here was any glimmer of interest or care for children one second after their birth.
And I'm not seeing it.

....... not seeing it.

 

[eider]

yes, i was, as were both of my children



we already do, as a country, for all of those persons in financial need, whether they were born disabled or the result of a rape

if it came to a vote, i would vote for it

so my answer is "yes"



same thing



i can't imagine why you would think i would stop caring for any child, regardless of their "group" after they're born

Update.......
That looks much better than your previous post...... and I acknowledge it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just a small sample of how the libs don't partake in personal attacks. opcorn:

There were no personal attacks aimed in your direction. Saying that your qualifiers were silly wasn't a personal attack, it wasn't even an insult. It was certainly silly to maintain the premise when the obvious flaws in it were pointed out. Again, not a personal attack and not an insult. You'd have to have one hell of a thin skin to think otherwise. Haven't a clue why you highlighted the following bit about childish insults because I simply said you hadn't been on the receiving end of any.

Where it comes to JR then the guy is a religious zealot. Anyone who goes on about having laws that kill people for being gay and bringing back stoning is hardly a "moderate" are they? AFAIC, anyone who would curtail the rights and civil liberties as he would is a zealot and a crackpot. Hopefully, with some years on the clock he'll mature and develop some humanity about him.

Where it comes to "okdoser", then he is a sadact with his juvenile stalking and trolling. So that isn't name calling, it's simply an observation.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course, Artie. You're innocent and I'm guilty. You aren't snarky, but I am. You aren't vulgar with all your talk of the normalcy of homosexuality, and I'm vulgar for daring to say the word "poop". A normal bodily function is vulgar but homosexual acts are not.

The danger is claiming good is evil and evil is good, and that's what you leftists do with everything.

With this thread, you certainly were the one to do everything you claimed that "leftists" were going to fling your way. Don't really get this odd fixation that you and others have for a certain sexual act that isn't exclusive to homosexual men as all I advocate is that gay men and women should have the same rights as anyone else so not really seeing what's vulgar about that. Most normal people feel the same way and that's reflected in society at large. You're the one in "Lala land" if you think that most folk would go along with the likes of your buddy JR's proposals and you know it.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I do mean dangerous. These out of control haters are fast becoming mobs who will stop at nothing to destroy this country. They are vulgar and proud of it. Where does this evil come from? Blame this on Trump, too, I suppose?

The new tactic is a blatant war on anyone who is not a member of their mob. Danger is here.

All true and then some

Watch the haters zoom in with their personal attacks. opcorn:

It seems they are changing their tactics now. Now they pretend to talk about issues. The problem is, they just lie when they talk about them.

 

[annabenedetti]

Well ... that does go hand in hand with supporting life.

Surprise, surprise..

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.​

 

[Catholic Crusader]

......the World Health Organization......

Siding with the thug organization run by demagogues and against America. Typical Leftist fool, spewing out propaganda and believing it.

They spread abortion by the way, Mrs. Hypocrite

 

[annabenedetti]

The Trump administration made trade threats to Ecuador over … breastfeeding


The US got Ecuador to back down from a breastfeeding resolution by threatening trade retaliation and pulling military aid.

The United States threatened to hit Ecuador with retaliatory trade measures and to pull military aid over the South American country proposing an international resolution that encouraged breastfeeding. The US eventually agreed to the resolution — when Russia backed it.

American officials surprised international delegates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly in May when they opposed a widely popular resolution to promote breastfeeding, according to a report from Andrew Jacobs at the New York Times on Sunday. Specifically, they pushed to remove language asking governments to “protect, promote, and support breast-feeding.” They also took issue with a passage that called for policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that may harm children.

It appears the Trump administration sided with corporate interests — in this case, the $70-billion infant formula industry — over the health and well-being of kids around the globe. The baby food industry is primarily based in the US and Europe.

The Americans were so ardent in their opposition they made serious threats to Ecuadorian delegates, who were going to introduce the resolution. According to the Times, the Americans said if Ecuador didn’t drop the proposal, “Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid.”

The resolution ultimately made its way through thanks to Russia, which decided to step in because “we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” a Russian delegate told the Times. The US didn’t make the same threats to Russia as it did Ecuador, and the resolution was passed mostly in its original form.​

 

[Town Heretic]

Surprise, surprise..

U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.​

Too many boobs in Washington.

​

 

[The Barbarian]

Too many boobs in Washington.

:shocked:

 

[WizardofOz]

No red herring......... if you ever had enough support to legislate against all abortions, would you automatically legislate for free health and education for all children, and free welfare for life for disabled and rape victims, all paid for by the State?
:idunno:

You didn't answer my question.