A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Chuz Life]

Why don't any of you proabort leftards ever just admit that an abortion kills a child and denies to them the equal protections of our laws?

You could still support abortion and believe it or not, I and others might even respect you for being honest about it.

First of all, your "proabort leftard" attack belies your claim of ever being able to respect anyone who's views differ from yours. Second, we don't admit that, because we do not agree with the position.

1. I don't have any respect for any proabort leftards and I admit that much freely. That said, I would have MUCH MORE respect for a proabort leftard who has the backbone to admit that an abortion kills a child and denies them their rights than I do for anyone who can't or won't admit the same.

So, just how much respect is "much more" than zero? Wouldn't that still be zero? So, since you have already demonstrated that you are incapable of respect for anyone who disagrees with you, why should any of us give so much as a single fuck what you think of us?

That being the case, i saw no reason to bother responding to your second, irrelevant, point.

Wow, now it shows that you suck at math too. No wonder you suck at logic. Any 3rd grader knows that zero plus anything is MORE than zero.

As for you not giving a fuck about what I think of you? That's mutual. Obviously. Still, I wish that I could find something to respect in a proaborts position. . . And the honest acceptance of the fact that an abortion kills a child and denies their rights would be a great start.

As it stands, I can not find anything to respect in a position that places the onus and the burden on a new child to live long enough and to develop past some arbitrarily drawn point where you can't stomach your denials anymore before you will finally (reluctantly) admit even to yourself that they are a fellow human being and deserving of rights.

 

[Boss]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

 

[Czernobog]

Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN - eye witness to partial birth abortions

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn't in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby's foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I'm seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady's in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you're having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn't believe -- I don't know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn't happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I'm a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I'm a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby's head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby's brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I've seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn't anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, "Don't throw up, don't throw up, you're gonna be embarrassed if you do this." So I tried not to.He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out.

Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, "Try to discourage her from seeing the baby." He doesn't like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms...

...She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God...to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby's face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I've ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he's an angel now, he's in heaven. And I couldn't take it. In all the years I've been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

Oh! I agree with you completely. Which is why I fully support restricting late-term/partial birth abortions to health concerns. So, we're on the same page then? Late Term elective abortions are a "no-no", while what a pregnant woman does with a non-viable fetus is entirely her own business. See? If we can work together we can all find some common sense common ground.

We're only going to get on the same page whenever you admit that a embryo and fetus are human beings. As long as you want to ignore that fact of biology, we will not be on the same page. A "non-viable" fetus doesn't require an abortion. Only a viable fetus needs to be aborted.

In accordance with your rather broad definition of "being", I can concede your position - so long as you can concede that a fetus is not synonymous with baby, infant, child, or person.

There should never be abortion beyond the first trimester with the rare exception of a medical emergency where the woman's life is at risk. If a woman cannot handle this within the first trimester she has no business considering that option. Beyond that, any abortion in the first trimester should be administered after counseling and diligent consideration. The parameters of this should be set by state government and not federal and no federal funding should ever be allowed for abortions.

Now, you see, this is where you are being overly authoritarian. What in the second trimester, distinguishes the fetus from the first trimester. Now, keep in mind, that I am well aware that by week 24, a fetus is sufficiently developed enough to survive on its own, and has all of the characteristics of an infant. Now, suppose you illuminate for me what, in the 13th week, distinguishes the fetus? You see, you want to make your determination on these arbitrary "trimesters". I much prefer the more specific viable, not viable. If the fetus is not viable, then it is not a person, and what the woman does with her property - yes, a non-viable fetus is property just as her eggs, and embryos are her property - is entirely her business.

 

[Czernobog]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

That's funny! Since the question of "personhood" wasn't even an issue until you fake conservatives all started running to your legislatures with these stupid "Personhood Acts" trying to do exactly that - arbitrarily define a fetus as a person. So, don't blame me for using your compatriots' fucking terms.

If a fetus isn't a person, then all of this is irrelevant, as only persons have rights.

 

[Boss]

We're only going to get on the same page whenever you admit that a embryo and fetus are human beings. As long as you want to ignore that fact of biology, we will not be on the same page. A "non-viable" fetus doesn't require an abortion. Only a viable fetus needs to be aborted.

In accordance with your rather broad definition of "being", I can concede your position - so long as you can concede that a fetus is not synonymous with baby, infant, child, or person.

Fetus is not synonymous with embryo, baby, infant or child... don't know about "person" because that isn't a clinical definition. But all of the aforementioned ARE human beings. It's not a broad definition, it's the accurate one... a being is something in the state of being or physical existence. That's just what it is.

There should never be abortion beyond the first trimester with the rare exception of a medical emergency where the woman's life is at risk. If a woman cannot handle this within the first trimester she has no business considering that option. Beyond that, any abortion in the first trimester should be administered after counseling and diligent consideration. The parameters of this should be set by state government and not federal and no federal funding should ever be allowed for abortions.

Now, you see, this is where you are being overly authoritarian. What in the second trimester, distinguishes the fetus from the first trimester. Now, keep in mind, that I am well aware that by week 24, a fetus is sufficiently developed enough to survive on its own, and has all of the characteristics of an infant. Now, suppose you illuminate for me what, in the 13th week, distinguishes the fetus? You see, you want to make your determination on these arbitrary "trimesters". I much prefer the more specific viable, not viable. If the fetus is not viable, then it is not a person, and what the woman does with her property - yes, a non-viable fetus is property just as her eggs, and embryos are her property - is entirely her business.

I'm not being authoritarian, I am being practical and pragmatic. Beyond the first trimester, the fetus has developed most of it's nervous system and feels pain. It's brain is functioning and capable of emotion. At that point, I believe the fetus should have constitutionally-protected human rights. Personhood means nothing to me, we can draw all kinds of arbitrary "personhood" guidelines... we can even render YOU not a "person" if we apply the right caveats. It will never change the fact that you are a human being.

 

[Chuz Life]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

 

[Boss]

That's funny! Since the question of "personhood" wasn't even an issue until you fake conservatives all started running to your legislatures with these stupid "Personhood Acts" trying to do exactly that - arbitrarily define a fetus as a person. So, don't blame me for using your compatriots' fucking terms.

If a fetus isn't a person, then all of this is irrelevant, as only persons have rights.

Well, I don't know where it started and it really doesn't matter, does it? It's not a clinical or scientific definition. I have no idea what your criteria is for a "person" and there is not a scientific or biological definition. It's simply a label you are incorrectly applying in order to deny constitutional rights to certain human beings... no different than we've done with slaves, minorities and women over the years.

 

[Boss]

Lemme help you out by reposting the part of my post that you absolutely did delete, that answered your question:

I know...I know...you, and several others are going to leap in saying that it affects "the baby's life". Except there is no baby; there is only a fetus, which is, at best, a potential person. You'll forgive me if I am more concerned with the freedom of choice of an actual person than I am of a potential person.

This is sheer nonsense and not supportable with biology or science. You're jumping all around with various words that have specific meaning. A fetus isn't a "baby" it's a fetus. Just like a "baby" isn't a teenager. These are simply words we use to describe various phases of human life. An embryo, a fetus, an infant, a newborn, a baby, a toddler...etc. They are ALL human beings from the moment of conception.

"Personhood" is nonsense. It has no testable, observable or measurable aspect in Science. It is an arbitrary word you created to distinguish what you wish to consider human life and what you wish to disregard as human life. There is never anything added to a fetus or embryo to make it into a "person" ...it's simply a matter of time in which to develop various characteristics. So I totally reject your argument for "personhood" on the basis of it not being scientific.

For the most part, Personhood is a legal construct. Though "persons" and personhood most surely existed before they (we) were defined by laws.

So, I agree with much of what you said. However, I disagree with your claim that personhood is not or can not be scientific.

The legal definition for a natural person is simply "a human being" and science is very well capable of finding, determining and identifying what is and what is not "a human being."

Isn't it?

Science says a human being exists whenever the fertilized egg reproduces a cell. That is, point of conception. It also defines when a human being is an "embryo" as opposed to a "fetus" and there are clinical requirements used. But "personhood" isn't even a real word, much less a scientific classification. It is purely an arbitrary and subjective philosophical concept.

 

[OKTexas]

I have no more right to impose my personal moral views about abortion on someone else

wrong...if everyone that is in favor of reducing abortions would be outwardly honest maybe there would be less abortion. And that would be a good thing. It's killing there is no two ways about it. I realize there are times it may be necessary due to the health of the mother but abortion out of convenience is selfish and wrong.

"...is selfish and wrong..." is a personal moral opinion. That is precisely what I am talking about. Whether I agree with you, or not - and, please note that I have not said if I do - no one has the right to dictate to others that they behave in accordance with one's personal moral opinions.

Does that mean you don't think Christian businesses should be forced to provide services to gay events?

Nice try. A business is not a person, I don't care what you fake conservatives want to claim. The owner of a business is entitled to believe, and act, in their private lives, any way they see fit. However, we established a long time ago that businesses do not get to discriminate based on personal prejudices. Now, how about we get back on topic, yes?

Never own or operated a sole proprietor business have you?

 

[OKTexas]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

Sure, just as soon as you folks reduce spending to only those areas provided for in the Constitution. Deal?

Like we have said, the only one's whining about how their taxes are spent are you fake conservatives. so, you don't get to use the "Why don't you pay for them" argument. Because we are paying for them. And we are doing so without being whiny little bitches about it.

By the way, only provided in the Constitution would also defund Homeland Security, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the CIA, among others. I guess you don't think the government should be able to protect itself from enemies foreign, and domestic, huh? Hell of a patriot you are...

Thank you for playing. Have a nice day. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.

So you agree the feds are not following the Constitution, nice to see a regressive admit it. Now, screw you and your parting gifts.

 

[OKTexas]

Liberals don't care about the poor. If you did to the level you claim, the rest of us wouldn't be forced to fund programs you support. You'd simply provide them what you think they deserve with your money. You do know you can do that without government involvement, don't you?

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

 

[OKTexas]

Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, RN - eye witness to partial birth abortions

I could see the baby. I could see the heartbeat. And the doctor wanted me to stand right beside him, because he wanted me to see everything there was about partial-birth abortion. So I stood there. He went in, guided by ultrasound. He took a pair of forceps and went in and turned the baby because it wasn't in this position at the time. He found a foot and he pulled the baby's foot down through the birth canal, bringing it down and grabbed another foot, and literally started pulling the baby out, breech position, feet first. And he kept pulling it down, and I'm seeing this baby come pulled out of the mommy, his butt, his chest, and then, he delivered both these arms. And the lady's in stirrups, just like you have a baby or just like you're having an ob/gyn examination. And the baby, the only thing that was supporting the baby was the doctor was holding it in with his two fingers, holding the neck so the head was just inside the mommy.

And the baby was kicking his feet, hanging there, moving his little fingers and his little arms. I couldn't believe -- I don't know what I thought killed it in three days, but he was moving and I kept watching that baby move. And I kept thinking to myself, this isn't happening and I thought I was going to pass out. And I kept telling myself, I'm a professional, I can handle this, you know, this is right, this is supposed to be, and I supposed to handle this, I'm a nurse. He then took a pair of scissors and jammed them into the back of the baby's head. And the baby jerked out, like a startle reflex, like a baby does if you throw him up a little bit and he jumps. And then the baby was real rigid. The doctor then opened up the scissors to make a hole. He took a high powered suction machine with a catheter and stuck it in that hole and suctioned the baby's brains out. And the baby went completely limp.

And I have seen that in my mind a thousand or more times, of that baby, watching the life just drain out of it. And like I said before, I've seen babies die in my hands, I had people die in my hands. But it wasn't anything like seeing that vision of watching this abortion. And I almost threw up all over the floor. I was literally just breathing and saying, "Don't throw up, don't throw up, you're gonna be embarrassed if you do this." So I tried not to.He pulled the head out, he cut the umbilical cord and threw it in a pan, and delivered the placenta and threw it in the same pan, he covered it up and took it out.

Well, this mommy wanted to see her baby. And the doctor told us ahead of time, he said, "Try to discourage her from seeing the baby." He doesn't like that. But she had the right to see it. So they cleaned it up and we cleaned her up, and we walked her out of the operating room, and took her to a room and handed her the baby.

The mother held her dead baby in her arms...

...She held that baby in her arms and she screamed and prayed to God...to forgive her, and for that baby to forgive her, and she held it and rocked it, and told him that she loved him. And I looked in that baby's face, and he had the most angelic perfect face I've ever seen, and I just kept thinking, he's an angel now, he's in heaven. And I couldn't take it. In all the years I've been a nurse, [for the first time] I lost it. And I pardoned myself and excused myself and I ran to the bathroom and I cried and prayed.

Oh! I agree with you completely. Which is why I fully support restricting late-term/partial birth abortions to health concerns. So, we're on the same page then? Late Term elective abortions are a "no-no", while what a pregnant woman does with a non-viable fetus is entirely her own business. See? If we can work together we can all find some common sense common ground.

We're only going to get on the same page whenever you admit that a embryo and fetus are human beings. As long as you want to ignore that fact of biology, we will not be on the same page. A "non-viable" fetus doesn't require an abortion. Only a viable fetus needs to be aborted.

There should never be abortion beyond the first trimester with the rare exception of a medical emergency where the woman's life is at risk. If a woman cannot handle this within the first trimester she has no business considering that option. Beyond that, any abortion in the first trimester should be administered after counseling and diligent consideration. The parameters of this should be set by state government and not federal and no federal funding should ever be allowed for abortions.

Informed consent? That's the last thing regressives want when it comes to abortion. They want to keep the prospective mom as ignorant as possible. That can't happen when ALL consequences are discussed.

 

[Rambunctious]

no one has the right to dictate to others that they behave in accordance with one's personal moral opinions.

dictate? no persuade yes....you won't do much persuading by watering down the event. Call it as it is.

 

[Czernobog]

no one has the right to dictate to others that they behave in accordance with one's personal moral opinions.

dictate? no persuade yes....you won't do much persuading by watering down the event. Call it as it is.

Except you guys don't want to "persuade". You want to pass laws dictating behaviour.

The only thing you want to "persuade" anyone of is the moral appropriateness of your dictates.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

You seem to be confused. It is not a lack of concern for the poor. It is an equal concern that everyone in this nation who is able do their fair share.

Us liberals pay our taxes without complaint. Those taxes are used for things with which we agree, ideologically, as well as for things with which we do not. Still, we pay our fair share without complaint.

It is only you fake conservatives who constantly bitch, and whine like little children about having to pay your fair share, and have it used for things you don't like.

We, suck it up, buttercup. Pay your fucking taxes, and quit bitching.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

Yet you cry babies keep shedding tears that this guy or that guy isn't paying their fair share, which is it child? Are the people following the law paying their fair share or not?

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

 

[Divine Wind]

.....Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

No one is suggesting that you are not paying. Although, "fair share' would be a topic for an entirely different discussion. it's the whining like little school girls about "Oh! We don't want to pay for that!!!" to which we are referring. "Wah! Wah! my taxes are being used to feed poor people! Wah. Wah!"

How about you all shut the fuck up, pay your taxes, and quit bitching, like us ebul, heartless libruls?

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Because your questions are red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you wanna wonder on back around to the topic, you lemme know. I'll be happy to engage with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[OKTexas]

.....Damn you regressive sodomite enablers are so pathetic.

WTF is a "regressive sodomite enabler"?

What Monica did to Bubba was sodomy.

Definition of SODOMY
anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex;also : copulation with an animal

Why did you ask a question you already knew the answer to?

BTW the short answer is the commiecrat party.

I know the definition of sodomy, but had never heard of nor do I know what you mean by "regressive sodomite enabler". Now worries. If you don't know either or don't want to answer straightforwardly and honestly, you don't have to do so.

Which party is pushing all these gay/transgender issues and enabling these sodomites and mentally ill people?

 

[OKTexas]

BTW you didn't answer my question.

That's because your question is irrelevant, and implies an accusation that was never made. No one claimed anyone wasn't paying their fair share. We claimed that you fake conservatives were incapable of paying your fair share without whining like little bitches about it.

Why would I respond to a question that had no basis for being asked?

Really, you might want to tell that to bernie, the hildabitch, your dear leader and 99% of the regressives on this board, that people who follow the law ARE paying their fair share, they can't seem to figure that out for themselves.

And that would be a wonderful debate, on an entirely different thread. Would you like to get back to the topic of this thread?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

Because your questions are red herrings that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. When you wanna wonder on back around to the topic, you lemme know. I'll be happy to engage with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you don't want to answer legitimate questions about your positions in this thread? Typical hypocrite.