An Example of Disinformation Designed to Deiscredit Tea Party Folks

[Camp]

Again, distortions ans speculative opinions. Just because you call zygotes, fetuses and tissue a baby doesn't make it true or a fact. The fact is, scientifically and technically those were not babies. You have distorted the story by referring to a fetus as a baby. Your other examples use the same kind of distortions.

You got any examples of anyone saying I am having a fetus?
It is only referred to as a fetus when getting an abortion.
It becomes a baby, to fetus, a nothing, when being aborted, when it is and always will be a baby.

A fetus does not live outside of it's mothers womb. It becomes a baby when it leaves the womb. To say a person is having a fetus is to imply the person is giving birth to a child not yet ready to be live born. A fetus born not alive is called a still born.
Perhaps if you learned and used definitions as defined in dictionaries instead of you fantasy world and imagination you would not make such silly statements.

NOBODY who is pregnant says that they are having a fetus.

I explained it to you. Nobody wants to proclaim they are having a dead baby. They say they are having a baby to imply they are going to give birth to a live child. Why would they say they were going to have a fetus that can not live outside the mothers womb?

Complete and utter nonsense.

no one called unborn babies fetuses outside of a clinical setting except for murderous baby killing mills became popular among the murder loving libtards started promoting abortion.

You hide behind technical definitions as if they disguised our meaning and intent which is murdering unborn babies, nothing less.

My comments were direct responses to Peach174 dickhead. Using definitions is not a technical matter. There is nothing technical about using the right words to express a thought accurately. Your comment is actually pretty dumb if you think about it. Where did you go to school, the Babel High School? Technical definitions of words. What a hoot.

 

[Dad2three]

Again, distortions ans speculative opinions.

And that is your opinion but it is based on nothing more than your unsupported assertions.

I am content to let the readers, including lurkers, make their own judgements.

Just because you call zygotes, fetuses and tissue a baby doesn't make it true or a fact.

And just because you call babies zygotes, does not make them anything else than an unborn baby.

The fact is, scientifically and technically those were not babies.

No, truth is that subclassing a subject does not exclude it from broader categories.

Just because a truck is a truck, it doesn't mean that it isn't also a vehicle.

Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies.

You have distorted the story by referring to a fetus as a baby. Your other examples use the same kind of distortions.

And your assertions are unsupported and nothing more than opinion and your distortions are obvious as you pretend to be a neutral arbitrator and stack the deck as you distort all three subjects.

But at least you are being a reasonable person and present a respectful tone....at least so far.

"Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies."


HINT SCIENCE SAYS IT DOES!!! Potential babies? Yes. Babies? NO

There is no scientific definition of a baby, idiot. The vernacular has referred to unborn babies for millennia and calling them zygotes doesn't change a god damned thing, you PC Nazi murderous bastard.

baby
Type: Term

Pronunciation: bā′bē
Definitions:
1. An infant; a newborn child.

Baby -- Medical Definition

zygote

/ˈzaɪɡəʊt; ˈzɪɡ-/
noun
1.
the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon
2.
the organism that develops from such a cell


Fetus
Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth



Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. The fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

Fetus - Biology-Online Dictionary

Again, just more lies and cherry picked data from another degenerate who cant wait to see more babies slaughtered.

Even the Nazis didn't tolerate post partem abortions for normal children.

As to your bullshit word play:

baby
ba·by
(bā′bē)
n. pl. ba·bies
1. a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.

Oh, NOT a scientific definition like the link I gave...

 

[BULLDOG]

Twisted and out of context crap is all the tea people and the rest of the right have. If they were honorable and trust worthy, it wouldn't be that way.

Yeah like the progressives ad with throwing Grandma off the cliff.
Never mind that the bill did not include Seniors currently on Medicare.

Bullshit. Ryan wanted to privatize medicare. Under his proposal, the government would give Medicare beneficiaries vouchers for private coverage instead of directly reimbursing hospitals for seniors' care, which it does today. In such a defined contribution plan, instead of the current defined benefit plan, seniors could end up paying a lot more out of their own pockets.

 

[CowboyTed]

Again, distortions ans speculative opinions.

And that is your opinion but it is based on nothing more than your unsupported assertions.

I am content to let the readers, including lurkers, make their own judgements.

Just because you call zygotes, fetuses and tissue a baby doesn't make it true or a fact.

And just because you call babies zygotes, does not make them anything else than an unborn baby.

The fact is, scientifically and technically those were not babies.

No, truth is that subclassing a subject does not exclude it from broader categories.

Just because a truck is a truck, it doesn't mean that it isn't also a vehicle.

Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies.

You have distorted the story by referring to a fetus as a baby. Your other examples use the same kind of distortions.

And your assertions are unsupported and nothing more than opinion and your distortions are obvious as you pretend to be a neutral arbitrator and stack the deck as you distort all three subjects.

But at least you are being a reasonable person and present a respectful tone....at least so far.

"Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies."


HINT SCIENCE SAYS IT DOES!!! Potential babies? Yes. Babies? NO

Thse IVF clinics must be all murders with the amount of fertilised eggs they destroy a year.

Why don't ye start by wanting to ban all feritity clinical practises, IUI, IVF.......

 

[CowboyTed]

You are confirming BULLDOG's comment. You present your opinions which are based on speculative opinions as if they are facts. Even if some of your claims hold some truth to them, they are still not verified facts, but only opinions. All of them have been presented by the Tea Party, if not always, at least most often with gross distortion.

Planned Parenthood is selling baby body parts: FACT, though they try to do a little CYA claiming this is only 'tissue donations' to science when PP was caught red handed on video negotiating prices.

Hillary is lying about her emails; FACT though her partisan supporters are claiming it is all about nothing, Hilalry was a classified information trained SECRETARY OF STATE and knew that foreign reports containing intelligence they were sharing are automatically considered classifed and, though it is a fact they were on her unsecure server, she continues to insist she had no knowledge of there being classified emails on that aserver. That is simply an obvious lie. You can call it opinion all you want, but to any fair minded nonPartisan person it is obvious that she is lying.


Obama lied about you being able to keep your insurance and doctor if you like them; FACT again, Obama knew it wasnt true when he said it, and that is a lie, even in Democrat lingo.

Again, distortions ans speculative opinions. Just because you call zygotes, fetuses and tissue a baby doesn't make it true or a fact. The fact is, scientifically and technically those were not babies. You have distorted the story by referring to a fetus as a baby. Your other examples use the same kind of distortions.

You got any examples of anyone saying I am having a fetus?
It is only referred to as a fetus when getting an abortion.
It becomes a baby, to fetus, a nothing, when being aborted, when it is and always will be a baby.

I see what you getting at...
You should bring your agruement to the supreme court...

Oh Wait, already done...

 

[CowboyTed]

Again, distortions ans speculative opinions.

And that is your opinion but it is based on nothing more than your unsupported assertions.

I am content to let the readers, including lurkers, make their own judgements.

Just because you call zygotes, fetuses and tissue a baby doesn't make it true or a fact.

And just because you call babies zygotes, does not make them anything else than an unborn baby.

The fact is, scientifically and technically those were not babies.

No, truth is that subclassing a subject does not exclude it from broader categories.

Just because a truck is a truck, it doesn't mean that it isn't also a vehicle.

Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies.

You have distorted the story by referring to a fetus as a baby. Your other examples use the same kind of distortions.

And your assertions are unsupported and nothing more than opinion and your distortions are obvious as you pretend to be a neutral arbitrator and stack the deck as you distort all three subjects.

But at least you are being a reasonable person and present a respectful tone....at least so far.

"Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies."


HINT SCIENCE SAYS IT DOES!!! Potential babies? Yes. Babies? NO

There is no scientific definition of a baby, idiot. The vernacular has referred to unborn babies for millennia and calling them zygotes doesn't change a god damned thing, you PC Nazi murderous bastard.

baby
Type: Term

Pronunciation: bā′bē
Definitions:
1. An infant; a newborn child.

Baby -- Medical Definition

zygote

/ˈzaɪɡəʊt; ˈzɪɡ-/
noun
1.
the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon
2.
the organism that develops from such a cell


Fetus
Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth



Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. The fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

Fetus - Biology-Online Dictionary

Again, just more lies and cherry picked data from another degenerate who cant wait to see more babies slaughtered.

Even the Nazis didn't tolerate post partem abortions for normal children.

As to your bullshit word play:

baby
ba·by
(bā′bē)
n. pl. ba·bies
1. a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.

Oxford dictionary says your wrong:
baby - definition of baby in English from the Oxford dictionary

Sorry about that but take real dictionaries rather than on off the web...

Either way it was decided by the SC.

 

[candycorn]

Conservatives complaining about being mis-characterized. Oh that is rich. There are about 400 threads a day lying about Obama and Hillary.

Its why Hillary will win next Fall...the public is inoculated from any further catterwalling from the GOP since they've been whining about her for 25+ years now.

Thats what you get when you cry wolf folks. Enjoy it.

 

[Mac1958]

From an outside perspective, the Tea Party to me seems to be a group of pro-life libertarians who would like to take over the GOP to have access to its infrastructure rather than remain libertarians on the fringe.

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You got any examples of anyone saying I am having a fetus?
It is only referred to as a fetus when getting an abortion.
It becomes a baby, to fetus, a nothing, when being aborted, when it is and always will be a baby.

A fetus does not live outside of it's mothers womb. It becomes a baby when it leaves the womb. To say a person is having a fetus is to imply the person is giving birth to a child not yet ready to be live born. A fetus born not alive is called a still born.
Perhaps if you learned and used definitions as defined in dictionaries instead of you fantasy world and imagination you would not make such silly statements.

NOBODY who is pregnant says that they are having a fetus.

I explained it to you. Nobody wants to proclaim they are having a dead baby. They say they are having a baby to imply they are going to give birth to a live child. Why would they say they were going to have a fetus that can not live outside the mothers womb?

Complete and utter nonsense.

no one called unborn babies fetuses outside of a clinical setting except for murderous baby killing mills became popular among the murder loving libtards started promoting abortion.

You hide behind technical definitions as if they disguised our meaning and intent which is murdering unborn babies, nothing less.

My comments were direct responses to Peach174 dickhead. Using definitions is not a technical matter. There is nothing technical about using the right words to express a thought accurately. Your comment is actually pretty dumb if you think about it. Where did you go to school, the Babel High School? Technical definitions of words. What a hoot.

Science has its own definitions for words that have a different common vernacular meaning that existed long before any scientist got a wild hair up his ass and made up a 'scientific' definition for it.

Babies are pre-toddler children, born and unborn and a bunch of cheddar crunching dweebs in lab coats do not change a damned thing, doofus. The vernacular definition of 'baby' also includes the unborn.

Now stick that up your pipe and smoke it, dear.

 

[JimBowie1958]

From an outside perspective, the Tea Party to me seems to be a group of pro-life libertarians who would like to take over the GOP to have access to its infrastructure rather than remain libertarians on the fringe.

.

Most of the ones I have met are Christian, mostly evangelical and pentecostal libertarian-conservatives. Unlike their name implies, they really have no organization.

Anyone can say that they are Tea Party, even if they have been a Democrat the last thirty years and never actually joined a Tea Party group.

Most don't actually do anything other than say they are Tea Party or support them and vote for people they think are also pro-Tea Party. Most of them are either supporting Trump, Carson or Cruz. Some of them actually attend a meeting once in a while, but I don't remember the last time any of them mentioned attending such a thing.

They mean well, and I agree with about 70% of their goals, but I disagree with much of it. We need a government to provide a common defense in a very troubling world. We need a social safety net. We need someone to regulate our markets and defend the interests of American workers. We need to ban activities that harm the general good even if it doesn't affect someone in a bad way directly.

But if they call me a Tea Partier, I don't mind and generally take it as a compliment.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, a half intelligent response from you. I guess you can do it if you put your few functioning gray cells to the task, but I shouldn't get carried away, I guess.

Conservatives complaining about being mis-characterized. Oh that is rich. There are about 400 threads a day lying about Obama and Hillary.

There are quite a few lies being spread about them, yes, but that is what puzzles me; there are so many truthful things that are dreadful about those two, why would anyone bother to make things up? They are both liras, con artists and frauds, posing as champions of the working class while they take hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street bankers and financial firms. Obama has fucked over the middle class from the day he swore his oath and Hillary will do the same thing again. I think that is one reason that Sanders now leads her in New Hampshire.

Its why Hillary will win next Fall...the public is inoculated from any further catterwalling from the GOP since they've been whining about her for 25+ years now.

I doubt that Hillary will get the nomination, dear. The momentum is not going her way at all.

Thats what you get when you cry wolf folks. Enjoy it.

No one is crying wolf except the Dims every election yelling that the GOP is going to reduce blacks to slavery, women to domestic servitude and build death camps for Jews. Every year it does not happen.

Dimbocrats are the queens of crying wolf.

 

[Mac1958]

They mean well, and I agree with about 70% of their goals, but I disagree with much of it. We need a government to provide a common defense in a very troubling world. We need a social safety net. We need someone to regulate our markets and defend the interests of American workers. We need to ban activities that harm the general good even if it doesn't affect someone in a bad way directly.

Well, with an attitude like that, you don't make a very GOOD Tea Partier.

This group (however it's defined) has hurt itself (and clearly aided the Democrats) with its absolutism and unwillingness to go anywhere near as far as you did there. Any person who knee-jerks "no" to virtually any government existence paints themselves into a corner pretty quickly, and that's what many of them have done.

I like the existence of Libertarians as an ongoing reminder that we need to be careful. But I think when they have too much influence over a major party like this, it can hurt that party.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And that is your opinion but it is based on nothing more than your unsupported assertions.

I am content to let the readers, including lurkers, make their own judgements.

And just because you call babies zygotes, does not make them anything else than an unborn baby.

No, truth is that subclassing a subject does not exclude it from broader categories.

Just because a truck is a truck, it doesn't mean that it isn't also a vehicle.

Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies.

And your assertions are unsupported and nothing more than opinion and your distortions are obvious as you pretend to be a neutral arbitrator and stack the deck as you distort all three subjects.

But at least you are being a reasonable person and present a respectful tone....at least so far.

"Just because a baby is a zygote does not make them unborn babies."


HINT SCIENCE SAYS IT DOES!!! Potential babies? Yes. Babies? NO

There is no scientific definition of a baby, idiot. The vernacular has referred to unborn babies for millennia and calling them zygotes doesn't change a god damned thing, you PC Nazi murderous bastard.

baby
Type: Term

Pronunciation: bā′bē
Definitions:
1. An infant; a newborn child.

Baby -- Medical Definition

zygote

/ˈzaɪɡəʊt; ˈzɪɡ-/
noun
1.
the cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a spermatozoon
2.
the organism that develops from such a cell


Fetus
Definition

noun, plural: fetuses

The yet-to-be born mammalian offspring following the embryonic stage, and is still going through further development prior to birth



Following the embryonic stage, the developing young enters the fetal period, which is in the later stages of development prior to birth. The fetal period is when the offspring has taken a recognizable form as its own species. The fetus is also characterized to possess the major organs in contrast to an embryo. The fetal organs though are not yet fully functional and are still undergoing further development.

In humans, the embryo is called a fetus at the ninth week from the time of conception up to the moment of birth. After being born, the offspring is called an infant or a newborn.

Fetus - Biology-Online Dictionary

Again, just more lies and cherry picked data from another degenerate who cant wait to see more babies slaughtered.

Even the Nazis didn't tolerate post partem abortions for normal children.

As to your bullshit word play:

baby
ba·by
(bā′bē)
n. pl. ba·bies
1. a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
c. The youngest member of a family or group.
d. A very young animal.

Oxford dictionary says your wrong:
baby - definition of baby in English from the Oxford dictionary

Sorry about that but take real dictionaries rather than on off the web...

Either way it was decided by the SC.

The Oxford dictionary a long time ago decided to go with 'popular' definitions of words, which IMO made it useless. Using the Oxford English dictionary one could have the same narrative and five different meanings to it as time goes by, which is horse crap. Words record the thoughts and meaning of the author at the time and all this 'living text' manure is exactly that manure, as is the OED now days.

My quote of a dictionary was just to show the common usage of the word baby and that it also referenced unborn babies and it irrefutably did that. The absence of such a meaning in the OED is meaningless other than it hasn't been used that way among academians in England, a dying nation on an imploding continent.

 

[JimBowie1958]

This group (however it's defined) has hurt itself (and clearly aided the Democrats) with its absolutism and unwillingness to go anywhere near as far as you did there. Any person who knee-jerks "no" to virtually any government existence paints themselves into a corner pretty quickly, and that's what many of them have done.
.

Yes, that is their rhetoric, a reflexive no to anything the government might be suggested to do, but I think that this comes from a general feeling most of them have that the federal government's SCOPE of responsibility has been extended way too far and is much broader than the Founding Fathers ever intended or would have been happy with. The Founding Fathers are a really big deal to them. They also think taxes are high enough, and I agree with them. IF the government decides to perform some new function, they need to fund it and cut from other places to make room in the budget for it. This is why I want a Balanced Budget Amendment with an exemption for declared states of war.

But look at who they are supporting; Donald Trump who is hardly a doctrinaire Conservatarian, and Carson who speaks of the need for a compassionate government. Only Cruz is a strict rigid ideologue on every topic, and he is the TP's third choice, not the first.

The TP leadership is not there because they have due authority from some higher level organization, or because they necessarily lead by example. No, most of them are just guys who saw which way the herd was going and ran to the front of it and posture like they lead it all and somehow had something to do with its creation. Bullshit.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I have had Tea Party friends show me this video at least a dozen times on FB and elsewhere.





It is a stupid lie that is designed to discredit them, not Obama.

Here is the full speech and the relevant comments begin around 2:00 and the specific part that seems to affirm authoritarian regimes is at 3:30.

It is easy to see that Obama said nothing of the sort the first video tries to claim.




People, don't be gullible and believe a thing without verifying it. Always go to the primary source before passing some screed along.

That was interesting and shows just how much Teabaggers lie and edit vids to spread rumors.

But actually, your OP title discredits the Teabaggers even more:

I wish you the best of luck on your English for Beginners course!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh, NOT a scientific definition like the link I gave...

And why do you think that scientific terms should displace vernacular terms that have a history stretching for thousands of years?

Is there a scientific definition for 'over educated moron'? Because that is what most of them are.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I wish you the best of luck on your English for Beginners course!

IT's called a 'typo' doofus, and all it proves is that you don't have anything of any real importance to say.

So you may take that as a clue you have zero data, thought or relevance to the topic.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I wish you the best of luck on your English for Beginners course!

IT's called a 'typo' doofus.

Oh, really?

Do tell.

So, you are not capable of editing the title like the rest of us mere mortals?

Hmmmmmm, interesting.

 

[Mac1958]

This group (however it's defined) has hurt itself (and clearly aided the Democrats) with its absolutism and unwillingness to go anywhere near as far as you did there. Any person who knee-jerks "no" to virtually any government existence paints themselves into a corner pretty quickly, and that's what many of them have done.
.

Yes, that is their rhetoric, a reflexive no to anything the government might be suggested to do, but I think that this comes from a general feeling most of them have that the federal government's SCOPE of responsibility has been extended way too far and is much broader than the Founding Fathers ever intended or would have been happy with. The Founding Fathers are a really big deal to them. They also think taxes are high enough, and I agree with them. IF the government decides to perform some new function, they need to fund it and cut from other places to make room in the budget for it. This is why I want a Balanced Budget Amendment with an exemption for declared states of war.

But look at who they are supporting; Donald Trump who is hardly a doctrinaire Conservatarian, and Carson who speaks of the need for a compassionate government. Only Cruz is a strict rigid ideologue on every topic, and he is the TP's third choice, not the first.

The TP leadership is not there because they have due authority from some higher level organization, or because they necessarily lead by example. No, most of them are just guys who saw which way the herd was going and run to the front of it and posture like they lead it all and somehow had something to do with its creation. Bullshit.

Yeah, the support of Trump is pretty fascinating. And they had my attention with their calls for responsible spending when they began, but as they grew they began attracting people like Beck & Palin & Bachmann and just seemed to go off the rails with all the showbiz.

Here's a (quite possibly worthless) theory I've had on this too: Seems to me that many of the people in the movement are relatively new to politics. These are people who had their opinions but never really got out and voiced them. Well, when you're new at something you make a lot of mistakes, and you tend to simply overdo it with your energy and passion. The reflexive behavior, the knee-jerking - while passion is good, it has to be tempered.

I dunno. The group does have a pretty checkered reputation, so it needs to be careful going forward.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Wow, a half intelligent response from you. I guess you can do it if you put your few functioning gray cells to the task, but I shouldn't get carried away, I guess.

Conservatives complaining about being mis-characterized. Oh that is rich. There are about 400 threads a day lying about Obama and Hillary.

There are quite a few lies being spread about them, yes, but that is what puzzles me; there are so many truthful things that are dreadful about those two, why would anyone bother to make things up? They are both liras, con artists and frauds, posing as champions of the working class while they take hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street bankers and financial firms. Obama has fucked over the middle class from the day he swore his oath and Hillary will do the same thing again. I think that is one reason that Sanders now leads her in New Hampshire.

Its why Hillary will win next Fall...the public is inoculated from any further catterwalling from the GOP since they've been whining about her for 25+ years now.

I doubt that Hillary will get the nomination, dear. The momentum is not going her way at all.

Thats what you get when you cry wolf folks. Enjoy it.

No one is crying wolf except the Dims every election yelling that the GOP is going to reduce blacks to slavery, women to domestic servitude and build death camps for Jews. Every year it does not happen.

Dimbocrats are the queens of crying wolf.

Liras! It's a new one folks! Obama and Clinton are both liras!