A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[NOLA Gator]

Back to the topic:

"What about the rights of the child?"

Who speaks for the fetus/child?

And what about the people who get "Multiple Abortions"? What, they don't know how to prevent this?

On the flip side of that, what about those having more children while relying on taxpayers to support the ones they already have?

My church will find homes for unwanted babies - Most of the time all medical expenses plus are paid.

 

[Boss]

Just like a fertilized chicken egg.....it has the potential of becoming a chicken, but in the meantime you don't mind enjoying it scrambled. Time has to be added to make it a "person". And, quit acting as if "human being" means so damn much to you.....you want to cut welfare, SNAP, Medicaid for all the "needy" human beings, so I guess you are just a damn hypocrite.

Not at all like a fertilized chicken egg... chickens are different life forms with different reproduction systems.

In humans, when the egg is fertilized it either begins to reproduce more cells or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there is no living organism and the body discards the fertilized egg as waste. If it does reproduce more cells, it IS (by biological definition) a new unique living organism in the state of being. Time is not an ingredient, it is a measure. In time, the organism will grow into a fetus and eventually will grow into an infant. At no time does it ever change what it already is... a living human organism in the state of being. So a fetus is a potential infant and an infant is a potential geriatric... they are all living human organisms in the state of being.

And I've not acted like human beings mean so much to me... I am simply pointing out a biological fact. What you are attempting is a straw man argument. My experience has been, when people start resorting to straw man arguments they've lost the debate.

 

[NOLA Gator]

And it a #$%^&*@ Chicken not a human - REALLY?

 

[Boss]

Dude, you're playing with semantics. A zygote is not a "being", human or otherwise. it's a fertilized egg, of which about a third self-abort without any assistance.

Self-abort from WHAT???

Miscarriage
According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.

More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages.

-----
What Causes Miscarriage?
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.

Other causes of miscarriage include:

• 
  
  
  • Infection
  • Medical conditions in the mother, such as diabetes or thyroiddisease
  • Hormone problems
  • Immune system responses
  • Physical problems in the mother
  • Uterine abnormalities

A woman has a higher risk of miscarriage if she:

• 
  
  
  • Is over age 35
  • Has certain diseases, such as diabetes or thyroid problems
  • Has had three or more miscarriages

Cervical Insufficiency

A miscarriage sometimes happens because there is a weakness of thecervix, called an incompetent cervix, which cannot hold the pregnancy. A miscarriage from an incompetent cervix usually occurs in the second trimester.

All understood. You've still not answered the question... Self-aborted from WHAT?

Now... according to my dictionary....
Miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion and pregnancy loss, is the natural death of an embryo or fetus before it is able to survive independently.

If something DIES... it must have been living. Therefore, if there has been a "miscarriage" there was a life. If something has "self-aborted" it has aborted the process of life.

Basically, what your argument amounts to.... is the only life that is valid is life that never dies. Surely, even a moron like you can see the problem with this argument?

 

[koshergrl]

Dude, you're playing with semantics. A zygote is not a "being", human or otherwise. it's a fertilized egg, of which about a third self-abort without any assistance.

Self-abort from WHAT???

Miscarriage
According to the March of Dimes, as many as 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage -- most often before a woman misses a menstrual period or even knows she is pregnant. About 15-25% of recognized pregnancies will end in a miscarriage.

More than 80% of miscarriages occur within the first three months of pregnancy. Miscarriages are less likely to occur after 20 weeks gestation; these are termed late miscarriages.

-----
What Causes Miscarriage?
Most miscarriages happen when the unborn baby has fatal genetic problems. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother.

Other causes of miscarriage include:

• 
  
  
  • Infection
  • Medical conditions in the mother, such as diabetes or thyroiddisease
  • Hormone problems
  • Immune system responses
  • Physical problems in the mother
  • Uterine abnormalities

A woman has a higher risk of miscarriage if she:

• 
  
  
  • Is over age 35
  • Has certain diseases, such as diabetes or thyroid problems
  • Has had three or more miscarriages

Cervical Insufficiency

A miscarriage sometimes happens because there is a weakness of thecervix, called an incompetent cervix, which cannot hold the pregnancy. A miscarriage from an incompetent cervix usually occurs in the second trimester.

All understood. You've still not answered the question... Self-aborted from WHAT?

Now... according to my dictionary....
Miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion and pregnancy loss, is the natural death of an embryo or fetus before it is able to survive independently.

If something DIES... it must have been living. Therefore, if there has been a "miscarriage" there was a life. If something has "self-aborted" it has aborted the process of life.

Basically, what your argument amounts to.... is the only life that is valid is life that never dies. Surely, even a moron like you can see the problem with this argument?

The definition of "abortion" is the termination of LIFE of the unborn.

 

[Conservative65]

Back to the topic:

"What about the rights of the child?"

Who speaks for the fetus/child?

And what about the people who get "Multiple Abortions"? What, they don't know how to prevent this?

On the flip side of that, what about those having more children while relying on taxpayers to support the ones they already have?

My church will find homes for unwanted babies - Most of the time all medical expenses plus are paid.

When things like that are done, that is the manner in which is should be done not because some bleeding heart Liberal thinks it's a good idea to force someone else to do it.

 

[Conservative65]

You asked for facts and when you get them, you ignore them because you don't like what they prove.

There sure are a lot of damn freeloaders that you hold in high regard.

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

 

[Czernobog]

You asked for facts and when you get them, you ignore them because you don't like what they prove.

There sure are a lot of damn freeloaders that you hold in high regard.

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

You asked for facts and when you get them, you ignore them because you don't like what they prove.

There sure are a lot of damn freeloaders that you hold in high regard.

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

 

[Czernobog]

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

The state I live in the poorest district is a white Republican district, has the state's highest crime rate, most people on welfare, highest number of teen pregnancies and abortions. Now, I'm not gonna tell you what state I live in, but since I said it that makes it a fact, right?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

You asked for facts and when you get them, you ignore them because you don't like what they prove.

There sure are a lot of damn freeloaders that you hold in high regard.

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I live in a state where the blue district makes the rest of us look bad. You don't have to believe the information. That it's true is not determined by whether or not you accept it but on what the numbers show.

 

[Conservative65]

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I've told you before, whether or not you accept it doesn't change the facts. You Liberal morons think that if you claim something isn't true, it makes it untrue because of your claim.

 

[Czernobog]

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I live in a state where the blue district makes the rest of us look bad. You don't have to believe the information. That it's true is not determined by whether or not you accept it but on what the numbers show.

Okay. My claim is true too, because I said so, just like you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I've told you before, whether or not you accept it doesn't change the facts. You Liberal morons think that if you claim something isn't true, it makes it untrue because of your claim.

No you just claiming it is true doesn't make it true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I've told you before, whether or not you accept it doesn't change the facts. You Liberal morons think that if you claim something isn't true, it makes it untrue because of your claim.

Next thing you'll tell me is that those comprising the majority number in that district don't come from a group that has an over 70% bastard birth rate, an unemployment rate 2x greater than whites, and vote Democrat 95% of the time.

 

[Conservative65]

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I live in a state where the blue district makes the rest of us look bad. You don't have to believe the information. That it's true is not determined by whether or not you accept it but on what the numbers show.

Okay. My claim is true too, because I said so, just like you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My claim is true because I used real numbers.

 

[koshergrl]

Back to the topic:

"What about the rights of the child?"

Who speaks for the fetus/child?

And what about the people who get "Multiple Abortions"? What, they don't know how to prevent this?

On the flip side of that, what about those having more children while relying on taxpayers to support the ones they already have?

My church will find homes for unwanted babies - Most of the time all medical expenses plus are paid.

Mine too.

The thing is, while they're endlessly agitating for more baby killing, these people are also making it almost impossible for people to adopt American babies.

So then they can say "nobody wants to adopt!" when really, it isn't that nobody wants to adopt..it's that they won't ALLOW anybody to adopt.

Typical commie nonsense.

 

[Conservative65]

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I've told you before, whether or not you accept it doesn't change the facts. You Liberal morons think that if you claim something isn't true, it makes it untrue because of your claim.

No you just claiming it is true doesn't make it true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I agree. That's why I used numbers to back it up not just a baseless claim.

 

[Czernobog]

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I live in a state where the blue district makes the rest of us look bad. You don't have to believe the information. That it's true is not determined by whether or not you accept it but on what the numbers show.

Okay. My claim is true too, because I said so, just like you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

My claim is true because I used real numbers.

Because you pulled numbers out of your ass doesn't make your claim true.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk