Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.
Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.
Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.
I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
[
Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.quote]I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.
I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.[
You are the one blathering without reason. You presume to know my position on vouchers.
I know the position of the radical left progressives
And you presume that supporting a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion is the same as approving of the decision they make.
That would be your presumption, hence the moronic "pro-choice" label.
Ghouls are not promoters of "choice," ghouls are promoters of "abortion."
Which brings up another issue; obviously the ghoul leadership understands how reprehensible the ghoul position really is, which is why deceptive terminology is employed.
Pro-abortion is not an advocate for more television stations nor for more soda-pop flavors. Abortion promoters like you have nothing to do with advocating "choice," you promote abortion.
I suspect that in most cases the more radical abortion promoters have a financial stake and personally gain from the billions in profits from the abortion - industrial complex.
You are obviously incapable of rational thought.
Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Leftists get so angry when defeated by logic and fact..
I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.[
You are the one blathering without reason. You presume to know my position on vouchers.
I know the position of the radical left progressives
And you presume that supporting a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion is the same as approving of the decision they make.
That would be your presumption, hence the moronic "pro-choice" label.
Ghouls are not promoters of "choice," ghouls are promoters of "abortion."
Which brings up another issue; obviously the ghoul leadership understands how reprehensible the ghoul position really is, which is why deceptive terminology is employed.
Pro-abortion is not an advocate for more television stations nor for more soda-pop flavors. Abortion promoters like you have nothing to do with advocating "choice," you promote abortion.
I suspect that in most cases the more radical abortion promoters have a financial stake and personally gain from the billions in profits from the abortion - industrial complex.
You are obviously incapable of rational thought.
Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Leftists get so angry when defeated by logic and fact..
I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
Anything else?
And, in principal, that's not a problem for me. However, if that private school is a Christian private school, then that, by definition, makes it a religious institution. As such, no public vouchers should be available to fund them. You wanna send your kid to private school, subsidized by the public dime? Fine. Pick one that isn't religious.I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.[
You are the one blathering without reason. You presume to know my position on vouchers.
I know the position of the radical left progressives
And you presume that supporting a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion is the same as approving of the decision they make.
That would be your presumption, hence the moronic "pro-choice" label.
Ghouls are not promoters of "choice," ghouls are promoters of "abortion."
Which brings up another issue; obviously the ghoul leadership understands how reprehensible the ghoul position really is, which is why deceptive terminology is employed.
Pro-abortion is not an advocate for more television stations nor for more soda-pop flavors. Abortion promoters like you have nothing to do with advocating "choice," you promote abortion.
I suspect that in most cases the more radical abortion promoters have a financial stake and personally gain from the billions in profits from the abortion - industrial complex.
You are obviously incapable of rational thought.
Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Leftists get so angry when defeated by logic and fact..
I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
Anything else?
Vouchers in the sense that many support them wouldn't be using public funding of religious institutions. It would be letting people use money that would go to a public school go to the private school. In return, the student wouldn't be using public schools.
You keep saying what I am opposed to and what I'm not. Sorry, you don't get to speak for what I believe and don't believe.
Afraid to answer my question? Thought so.
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.
Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.
Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.
I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
[
Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.quote]I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.
I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
And, in principal, that's not a problem for me. However, if that private school is a Christian private school, then that, by definition, makes it a religious institution. As such, no public vouchers should be available to fund them. You wanna send your kid to private school, subsidized by the public dime? Fine. Pick one that isn't religious.I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.[
You are the one blathering without reason. You presume to know my position on vouchers.
I know the position of the radical left progressives
And you presume that supporting a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion is the same as approving of the decision they make.
That would be your presumption, hence the moronic "pro-choice" label.
Ghouls are not promoters of "choice," ghouls are promoters of "abortion."
Which brings up another issue; obviously the ghoul leadership understands how reprehensible the ghoul position really is, which is why deceptive terminology is employed.
Pro-abortion is not an advocate for more television stations nor for more soda-pop flavors. Abortion promoters like you have nothing to do with advocating "choice," you promote abortion.
I suspect that in most cases the more radical abortion promoters have a financial stake and personally gain from the billions in profits from the abortion - industrial complex.
You are obviously incapable of rational thought.
Thank you for playing. Do feel free to pick up your parting gifts on the way out.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Leftists get so angry when defeated by logic and fact..
I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
Anything else?
Vouchers in the sense that many support them wouldn't be using public funding of religious institutions. It would be letting people use money that would go to a public school go to the private school. In return, the student wouldn't be using public schools.
You keep saying what I am opposed to and what I'm not. Sorry, you don't get to speak for what I believe and don't believe.
Afraid to answer my question? Thought so.
YOU said that you were opposed to, when I agreed to support your ban on abortions, and you still insisted that welfare was not something you would support. You just don't like public welfare. I offered to drop my support for one, or the other, and you said both are unacceptable. So, don't give me that bullshit. Your attempt to try to tie public welfare to the abortion issue is just a red herring.
[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.
I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.
I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Paid for by public taxes. You know, like that public welfare you hate so much? That makes it the public dime.And, in principal, that's not a problem for me. However, if that private school is a Christian private school, then that, by definition, makes it a religious institution. As such, no public vouchers should be available to fund them. You wanna send your kid to private school, subsidized by the public dime? Fine. Pick one that isn't religious.I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.I know the position of the radical left progressives
That would be your presumption, hence the moronic "pro-choice" label.
Ghouls are not promoters of "choice," ghouls are promoters of "abortion."
Which brings up another issue; obviously the ghoul leadership understands how reprehensible the ghoul position really is, which is why deceptive terminology is employed.
Pro-abortion is not an advocate for more television stations nor for more soda-pop flavors. Abortion promoters like you have nothing to do with advocating "choice," you promote abortion.
I suspect that in most cases the more radical abortion promoters have a financial stake and personally gain from the billions in profits from the abortion - industrial complex.
Leftists get so angry when defeated by logic and fact..
I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
Anything else?
Vouchers in the sense that many support them wouldn't be using public funding of religious institutions. It would be letting people use money that would go to a public school go to the private school. In return, the student wouldn't be using public schools.
You keep saying what I am opposed to and what I'm not. Sorry, you don't get to speak for what I believe and don't believe.
Afraid to answer my question? Thought so.
YOU said that you were opposed to, when I agreed to support your ban on abortions, and you still insisted that welfare was not something you would support. You just don't like public welfare. I offered to drop my support for one, or the other, and you said both are unacceptable. So, don't give me that bullshit. Your attempt to try to tie public welfare to the abortion issue is just a red herring.
It's not the public dime. It's my money that I'm allowed to use where I see fit.
I don't support freeloaders.
That is an oversimplification of the issue in an effort to justify a label you think will be offensive, and shameful. Guess what? The logical fallacy aside, your assumption of the result is incorrect, as well. Continue using an incorrect label if it makes you feel better. Those of us who ared pro-chjoice know the difference betweeen supporting a person's right to make a choice, and agreeing with the choice that is made.[/QUOTE]Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.
Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.
Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.
I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
[
Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.quote]I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.
I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
If you are a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal and if you actively defend that legality? You are pro-abortion.
Simple Definition of proponent
Definition of proabortion
- : a person who argues for or supports something
- : favoring the legalization of abortion
That's a lie.[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.
{
choice
}
- : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
- : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
- : a range of things that can be chosen
Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.
Abortion and choice are not the same thing.
You promote abortion, not choice.
That's a lie.I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.
While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.
You are a promoter of abortion.
That's a lie.I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.
You promote abortion on demand.
That's a lie.I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Once again, lying serves you poorly.
You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.
If you are a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal and if you actively defend that legality? You are pro-abortion.
Simple Definition of proponent
Definition of proabortion
- : a person who argues for or supports something
That is an oversimplification of the issue in an effort to justify a label you think will be offensive, and shameful. Guess what? The logical fallacy aside, your assumption of the result is incorrect, as well. Continue using an incorrect label if it makes you feel better. Those of us who ared pro-chjoice know the difference betweeen supporting a person's right to make a choice, and agreeing with the choice that is made.
- : favoring the legalization of abortion
[Are you a proponent for letting women choose what to do with their own bodies?
Yes, or no?
Are you a proponent for letting women choose what to do with their own bodies?Are you a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal?
Yes or no?
Yes, or no?
Paid for by public taxes. You know, like that public welfare you hate so much? That makes it the public dime.And, in principal, that's not a problem for me. However, if that private school is a Christian private school, then that, by definition, makes it a religious institution. As such, no public vouchers should be available to fund them. You wanna send your kid to private school, subsidized by the public dime? Fine. Pick one that isn't religious.I do support school vouchers. I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions. I didn't know that anyone was proposing legislation to make Social Security optional. I would need to see the particulars to make a determination, but, I wouldn't be opposed, in principal. The only thing I am opposed to is the privatization of Social security. One would think that the financial clusterfuck of `08 would be all anyone would need to consider to know what a bad idea that would be. Finally, you're not opposed to public welfare for women who had abortions; you are opposed to public welfare for anyone, so your question is a red herring.I've found, like you, that those calling themselves pro choice are nothing more than pro abortion. It's easy to show their hypocrisy. Ask them if they support school vouchers, people having the ability to opt out of being part of the social security system, not having to support the kids of a woman that said what she does with her body is her choice then demands someone else pay for her choice to have kids she couldn't afford, etc. Their answers to those questions prove that the only choice they support by describing themselves with that term is abortion.
Anything else?
Vouchers in the sense that many support them wouldn't be using public funding of religious institutions. It would be letting people use money that would go to a public school go to the private school. In return, the student wouldn't be using public schools.
You keep saying what I am opposed to and what I'm not. Sorry, you don't get to speak for what I believe and don't believe.
Afraid to answer my question? Thought so.
YOU said that you were opposed to, when I agreed to support your ban on abortions, and you still insisted that welfare was not something you would support. You just don't like public welfare. I offered to drop my support for one, or the other, and you said both are unacceptable. So, don't give me that bullshit. Your attempt to try to tie public welfare to the abortion issue is just a red herring.
It's not the public dime. It's my money that I'm allowed to use where I see fit.
I don't support freeloaders.
That's a lie.[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.
{
choice
}
- : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
- : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
- : a range of things that can be chosen
Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.
Abortion and choice are not the same thing.
You promote abortion, not choice.
That's a lie.I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.
While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.
You are a promoter of abortion.
That's a lie.I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.
You promote abortion on demand.
That's a lie.I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Once again, lying serves you poorly.
You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.
Since your entire post is nothing but a lie about what I do, and do not support, without my ever suggesting that I support what you claim I do, for th third time. don't bother responding, you are going on ignore.
Buh bye.
YES!Are you a proponent for letting women choose what to do with their own bodies?Are you a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal?
Yes or no?
Yes, or no?
YES!
Now, do you think there should be legal consequences for the CHOICES that people make when they CHOOSE to violate the rights of a CHILD?
Yes or no?
Apparently you do, since you just agreed that a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body.Also, I'll ask you again: "Are you a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal?" Yes or No?
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.
Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.
Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.
I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
[
Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.quote]I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.
Fuck you. I am not going to engage with someone who insists on lying about my positions.That's a lie.[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.
{
choice
}
- : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
- : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
- : a range of things that can be chosen
Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.
Abortion and choice are not the same thing.
You promote abortion, not choice.
That's a lie.I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.
While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.
You are a promoter of abortion.
That's a lie.I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.
Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.
You promote abortion on demand.
That's a lie.I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Once again, lying serves you poorly.
You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.
Since your entire post is nothing but a lie about what I do, and do not support, without my ever suggesting that I support what you claim I do, for th third time. don't bother responding, you are going on ignore.
Buh bye.
So you're running and hiding like a little pussy because someone said what you are? Typical coward.
