Democratic Party Officially Hijacked By Snowflakes - 'No Room In Party For 'Pro-Life' Democrats

[IResist]

Well, for one thing, we don't celebrate conception days. We celebrate birthdays.

We don't think of when we were conceived. We think of when we were born. Age is determined according to birth, not conception.

During conception and in the womb, the fetus is developing. Birth is when it is completed and life begins, in my view.

Again, I appreciate your openness but I hope you understand how the meanings of the words you are using do not exactly match the conclusions you are making. But, I don't want to get so far into the semantics that we turn this into a battle of definitions.

I appreciate that you oppose abortions, regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion.

That said, your comments above do leave me wondering about what your views on Fetal Homicide laws are.

Those laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act and they do in fact define "a child in the womb" as a "child" and as "a human being" in any stage of development while "in the womb."

As a pro-life / anti-abortion leftist, do you support those fetal homicide laws? Or do you think they are wrong and should be overturned?

Well, I support the charging of a double murder should the fetus die with the pregnant mother, though I think some want to punish/criminalize miscarriages. I don't really agree with that.

I don't know anyone who wants to criminalize miscarriages and I have been fighting abortion for 30 years.

You said that you support charging someone with double murder if the 'fetus' dies with the mother. That's great. I do too.

But the charge of MURDER means that the 'fetus' killed was something more than just a clump of cells doesn't it?

Isn't MURDER by definition, the criminal killing of one "person" by another?

The fetus is developing, though, and a would be person upon birth.

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, I appreciate your openness but I hope you understand how the meanings of the words you are using do not exactly match the conclusions you are making. But, I don't want to get so far into the semantics that we turn this into a battle of definitions.

I appreciate that you oppose abortions, regardless of how you arrived at that conclusion.

That said, your comments above do leave me wondering about what your views on Fetal Homicide laws are.

Those laws make it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" during a criminal act and they do in fact define "a child in the womb" as a "child" and as "a human being" in any stage of development while "in the womb."

As a pro-life / anti-abortion leftist, do you support those fetal homicide laws? Or do you think they are wrong and should be overturned?

Well, I support the charging of a double murder should the fetus die with the pregnant mother, though I think some want to punish/criminalize miscarriages. I don't really agree with that.

I don't know anyone who wants to criminalize miscarriages and I have been fighting abortion for 30 years.

You said that you support charging someone with double murder if the 'fetus' dies with the mother. That's great. I do too.

But the charge of MURDER means that the 'fetus' killed was something more than just a clump of cells doesn't it?

Isn't MURDER by definition, the criminal killing of one "person" by another?

The fetus is developing, though, and a would be person upon birth.

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

 

[IResist]

Well, I support the charging of a double murder should the fetus die with the pregnant mother, though I think some want to punish/criminalize miscarriages. I don't really agree with that.

I don't know anyone who wants to criminalize miscarriages and I have been fighting abortion for 30 years.

You said that you support charging someone with double murder if the 'fetus' dies with the mother. That's great. I do too.

But the charge of MURDER means that the 'fetus' killed was something more than just a clump of cells doesn't it?

Isn't MURDER by definition, the criminal killing of one "person" by another?

The fetus is developing, though, and a would be person upon birth.

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't know anyone who wants to criminalize miscarriages and I have been fighting abortion for 30 years.

You said that you support charging someone with double murder if the 'fetus' dies with the mother. That's great. I do too.

But the charge of MURDER means that the 'fetus' killed was something more than just a clump of cells doesn't it?

Isn't MURDER by definition, the criminal killing of one "person" by another?

The fetus is developing, though, and a would be person upon birth.

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

 

[IResist]

The fetus is developing, though, and a would be person upon birth.

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can a person be convicted of MURDER for killing a "would be" person?

Do you think any lawyers defending the accused would not challenge that?

Also, I have to ask.... what are you using to define what a "person" is and when "personhood" begins?

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

That's kind of my point.

Our Fetal Homicide laws have to make an exception to themselves in order to keep abortions legal.

That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

Remove the exceptions from the fetal homicide laws that are for now keeping abortions legal and what would you have left?

How long can we as a society maintain the position that when it is wanted. . . it is a child / person and anyone who kills it in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing it.... but if the mother decides she doesn't want it. . . it's just a clump of cells and nobody's business what she does with it?

 

[IResist]

To me, it is someone who has been born. Personhood begins at birth. I don't see myself as someone who was a person when I was in the womb. I see myself as someone who was developing for nine months.

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

That's kind of my point.

Our Fetal Homicide laws have to make an exception to themselves in order to keep abortions legal.

That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

Remove the exceptions from the fetal homicide laws that are for now keeping abortions legal and what would you have left?

How long can we as a society maintain the position that when it is wanted. . . it is a child / person and anyone who kills it in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing it.... but if the mother decides she doesn't want it. . . it's just a clump of cells and nobody's business what she does with it?

Except I do think it is a clump of cells in spite of my opposition to it. I do think in cases like rape, incest and the life of the mother should allow an option for abortion, though retroactive birth control is wrong to me.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are (of course) entitled to your personal beliefs as all of us are.

However, we can't all have each our own set of laws based on those beliefs. Can we?

"Persons" and "personhood" are legal definitions. Some of which are used to convict people of murders - when they criminally kill a "child in the womb."

Do you not agree that there is a conflict between our laws when one law recognizes and defines a "child in the womb" as a person and other laws or courts rulings (like Roe) that says they are NOT?

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

That's kind of my point.

Our Fetal Homicide laws have to make an exception to themselves in order to keep abortions legal.

That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

Remove the exceptions from the fetal homicide laws that are for now keeping abortions legal and what would you have left?

How long can we as a society maintain the position that when it is wanted. . . it is a child / person and anyone who kills it in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing it.... but if the mother decides she doesn't want it. . . it's just a clump of cells and nobody's business what she does with it?

Except I do think it is a clump of cells in spite of my opposition to it. I do think in cases like rape, incest and the life of the mother should allow an option for abortion, though retroactive birth control is wrong to me.

All persons are clumps of cells.

Aren't they?

Also, what's the distinction between rape and incest all about? I see that a lot. . . but if the incest was consenting (sick as that is) between two adults... you would still support abortions in that case?

My point is this. If the incest was between an adult and a child, then that too is a rape. So why the distinction between rape and incest in this case?

 

[IResist]

My response is, for better or for worse, federal law supersedes state law. In this case, it is Roe V. Wade. I also don't know how realistic it is to be overturned when Gorsuch himself said he would've walked out of the room if Trump asked him to overturn the case.

I find abortion to be wrong, but restricting abortion isn't enough for some of these people. They support a ban on contraceptives, they support employers firing women who use birth control, they support abstinence only sex education. People need to be smart about preventing abortion, and that includes all the things I just listed, since this is not a theocracy.

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

That's kind of my point.

Our Fetal Homicide laws have to make an exception to themselves in order to keep abortions legal.

That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

Remove the exceptions from the fetal homicide laws that are for now keeping abortions legal and what would you have left?

How long can we as a society maintain the position that when it is wanted. . . it is a child / person and anyone who kills it in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing it.... but if the mother decides she doesn't want it. . . it's just a clump of cells and nobody's business what she does with it?

Except I do think it is a clump of cells in spite of my opposition to it. I do think in cases like rape, incest and the life of the mother should allow an option for abortion, though retroactive birth control is wrong to me.

All persons are clumps of cells.

Aren't they?

Also, what's the distinction between rape and incest all about? I see that a lot. . . but if the incest was consenting (sick as that is) between two adults... you would still support abortions in that case?

My point is this. If the incest was between an adult and a child, then that too is a rape. So why the distinction between rape and incest in this case?

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

 

[Chuz Life]

Roe v Wade is indeed a federal (Supreme Court) ruling. . . just like the Dred Scott ruling was. but I digress.

You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the bipartisan passed "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" that has since been the basis for more than 30 State fetal homicide laws is ALSO a Federal law.

The "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" is a Federal Law - same as the Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was.

Do you still not see the contradiction?

From what it seems to me, apparently abortion is not included in this law.

That's kind of my point.

Our Fetal Homicide laws have to make an exception to themselves in order to keep abortions legal.

That is the contradiction that I am talking about.

Remove the exceptions from the fetal homicide laws that are for now keeping abortions legal and what would you have left?

How long can we as a society maintain the position that when it is wanted. . . it is a child / person and anyone who kills it in a criminal act can be charged with MURDER for killing it.... but if the mother decides she doesn't want it. . . it's just a clump of cells and nobody's business what she does with it?

Except I do think it is a clump of cells in spite of my opposition to it. I do think in cases like rape, incest and the life of the mother should allow an option for abortion, though retroactive birth control is wrong to me.

All persons are clumps of cells.

Aren't they?

Also, what's the distinction between rape and incest all about? I see that a lot. . . but if the incest was consenting (sick as that is) between two adults... you would still support abortions in that case?

My point is this. If the incest was between an adult and a child, then that too is a rape. So why the distinction between rape and incest in this case?

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

If the girl was raped, she was raped. Whether from her father or by someone else... and if you think abortions are justified in cases of rape... then why the need to add "incest" to the list?

The kind of incest you are talking about is also a rape. Right?

So, isn't it redundant to say you support abortion in cases of rape AND incest?

Why the redundancy?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I do think it's inhumane to abort a fetus, though I think life begins at birth, not at conception. .

How do you get around the scientific FACT that life begins with conception?

Once the egg is fertilized it is a new, entirely separated life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

 

[IResist]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

It is a very tough situation, but forcing the mother to go through such pain and trauma and punishing her as a victim is wrong. It breaks my heart the thought of a fetus being aborted, but I think it should be allowed in some cases as tough as it is.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

It is a very tough situation, but forcing the mother to go through such pain and trauma and punishing her as a victim is wrong. It breaks my heart the thought of a fetus being aborted, but I think it should be allowed in some cases as tough as it is.

Is it fair to say your entire belief about abortion is based more on your feelings and how it makes you feel. . . Than it is about the actual facts, definitions and the Constitutional principles in our laws?

So far, that's how it is coming across to me as I consider your responses to my questions.

Like I said earlier, I am glad you are pro life, regardless. It just doesn't seem like you have delved very deep into the facts to learn how to support your position or your reasoning though.

I think sounds like your heart is in the right place but that's about it.

 

[IResist]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

It is a very tough situation, but forcing the mother to go through such pain and trauma and punishing her as a victim is wrong. It breaks my heart the thought of a fetus being aborted, but I think it should be allowed in some cases as tough as it is.

Is it fair to say your entire belief about abortion is based more on your feelings and how it makes you feel. . . Than it is about the actual facts, definitions and the Constitutional principles in our laws?

Well I do think that feelings play a part into laws and issues and that that has also shaped our Constitution. Forcing a woman pregnant by rape to have her baby is punishing the victim.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

It is a very tough situation, but forcing the mother to go through such pain and trauma and punishing her as a victim is wrong. It breaks my heart the thought of a fetus being aborted, but I think it should be allowed in some cases as tough as it is.

Is it fair to say your entire belief about abortion is based more on your feelings and how it makes you feel. . . Than it is about the actual facts, definitions and the Constitutional principles in our laws?

Well I do think that feelings play a part into laws and issues and that that has also shaped our Constitution. Forcing a woman pregnant by rape to have her baby is punishing the victim.

While I share some of your views on the exceptions, it doesn't do either one of us any good to argue them back and forth if we don't first agree on what the facts and definitions are.

The Constitutional argument that would support a rape exception for example would not be argued by the court as a state is trying to "punish a victim. " It would much more be an argument along the lines of whether or not a woman's right to defend herself would include her right to terminate a pregnancy that is FORCED onto her in a rape.

For what it is worth, I agree that she would have that right.

 

[Chuz Life]

Well, I would say that there are women pregnant by rape by a family member. Some 10-year-old girl in South America was forced to give birth after being raped by her father because abortion is illegal in that country. To force such a thing, in my opinion, is wrong.

But on the other hand killing an innocent baby over something it did not do is just fine?

It is a very tough situation, but forcing the mother to go through such pain and trauma and punishing her as a victim is wrong. It breaks my heart the thought of a fetus being aborted, but I think it should be allowed in some cases as tough as it is.

Is it fair to say your entire belief about abortion is based more on your feelings and how it makes you feel. . . Than it is about the actual facts, definitions and the Constitutional principles in our laws?

Well I do think that feelings play a part into laws and issues and that that has also shaped our Constitution. Forcing a woman pregnant by rape to have her baby is punishing the victim.

I agree that feelings play a part. But feelings is about ALL you have been presenting in support of your views on abortion so far.

From one anti abortion to another. . . It looks weak when you can't support your conclusions with more than that.

At any rate... thanks for the Q&A.

I have to get to other things now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are 6 Democrats in Congress who identify as pro-life.

There are 5 Republicans in Congress who identify as pro-choice.

That makes the GOP the party less tolerant of the opposing view on abortion.

So shut up.

 

[Mac1958]

I wonder why he felt he had to say that.

 

[J.E.D]

LMAO! Had to post this!!!
A Message to ANTIFA from an American Infantryman – Iron Mike


Alright fucksticks, this circus has gone on long enough and the audience has gotten tired of the clowns doing the same act for months on end. Your special snowflake brand of socialist revolution (black masks and tipped over trash cans) is sputtering out from underneath you. You’re not any more dedicated and disciplined at seeing this through than you were moving out of your parents’ guest bedroom after your “one semester off” 4 years ago. It’s time to take off the Doc Martins, wash your dreadlocks, remove the 9 facial piercings, and go get a job. You are not a revolutionary. You’re not changing the world. You WILL NOT win. All of your goals are stupid and you should do what you do best…quit. Until at least January 20th, 2021 Donald Trump is still going to be President; America is going to have a Capitalist, Market Economy; and working-class people are not going to fall in line with a bunch of spoiled middle-class college pussies LARP-ing as communist insurgents. Let me delve into this a bit deeper since all you chardonnay socialists clearly have a goddamn learning disorder… and no, your self-diagnosed ‘Autism’ does not make you “Neurodiverse” it makes you a hand-flapping puddle of mush.

First of all, your stupid fucking beliefs are incoherent at best. Your little red & black flag of ‘Anarcho-Communism’ might as well be a goddamn Bat-Signal that you were on a first name basis with the driver of the short bus as a kid. Anarchism is the complete lack of formal government. Communism is the complete ownership of all property by the State and a state-planned central command economy. You’re telling me you want a world with no government, no private property, and a centralized distribution system to manage all wealth and material necessities? You idiots somehow came to the conclusion that these polar opposite concepts are somehow compatible, and that a bunch of dope smokers that congregated in online blog forums will bring about your imagined utopia by trashing a Starbucks? What the fuck is wrong with you? With that level of brain damage, it’s like your mom tried to drown you as a baby in a bathtub full of bong water… Seriously, you people are complaining that the current socio-political system is so unfair you (or insert minority you claim to speak on behalf of collectively here) can’t succeed in it, and somehow people who can’t manage to make Assistant Manager at Best Buy have the wherewithal to form a completely new society? Really? I suppose your professors should get some blame here too. They’re really the ones who put these moronic ideas in your heads in the first place. The aging hippies of the 60’s and 70’s – people who never actually had to succeed in life, and never did – now occupy most of the senior positions within the American college professoriate simply because they stuck around long enough. These idiots weren’t qualified to do anything except political activism and hide in institutes of higher education where their bad ideas never actually had to prove themselves valid in order to survive. Three generations of stupidity and failure (with some help from the Soviet KGB psychological warfare division) just compounded them into the ‘Critical Theory’ and Cultural Marxism you got pushed into your “useful idiot” head by some sexagenarian hypocrite ignorance profiteer. Remember: those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. I think deep down you’re pissed off because you know you got scammed. After all, why would your brilliant Socialist and Communist professors charge all that money to fill your head with their ideas if they actually believed what they were saying? Why didn’t they do it for free? Instead of admitting you got screwed, you doubled down on your beliefs and projected your bad decisions onto the rest of the world. Now you’re playing Red-Rover with a dumpster in the Berkeley town square.

Now let’s get to the type of person you are. You’re a fucking loser, there’s no other way to put it. Losers always gravitate towards collectivism because they are too inadequate to succeed on their own. If you had to be an individual, people would see what a loser you really are, so you dress alike and hide behind group identities. I mean honestly, the most famous member of your movement is a chick who does two things with her life; drugs and post pictures of her hairy tuna canoe on the internet. Real compelling soldier for your fight against “Fascism”, especially after she got her shit rocked by that flying right cross. You imagine yourself to be “On the right side of history” and your delusions of grandeur help reinforce your sense of moral superiority. You envision yourself a great revolutionary fighting tyranny and “Fascism” manifested by President Trump and anyone else who finds themselves to the political right of Chairman Mao Zedong… Really you’re just lazy greedy fucks who don’t want to pay their student loans back. If you’re communist revolutionaries, you’ve got to be the best-fed ones in history. Peasants in the Russian revolution of 1917 were starving when they overthrew the Romanov aristocracy; Chinese peasants were being starved and massacred by the imperial Japanese when they revolted; you go to your protests on a full stomach courtesy of mommy’s debit card and the nearest Whole Foods. I watched one of your Black Bloc members get his shirt pulled off and the stretch marks looked like propeller scars on a goddamn manatee. Being a fat disgusting blob of shit is indicative of poor impulse control and laziness; character traits of low-functioning people. You are hypocrites of the highest order too, another trait of low-functioning people. You claim to hate racists and white supremacists and then spew tirades of anti-white hatred online, smugly proclaiming you “Can’t be racist to white people” because you changed the definition of ‘Racism’ to fit your agenda. You claim to hate authoritarianism, and then proceed to dictate what people are allowed to say, what people are allowed to think, which identities are allowed to have opinions on which issues, and threaten violence on anyone who disagrees with your stupid bullshit. The Nazis had Brown-shirts; you march around with the “Brown Berets” while claiming to hate Nazis… Maybe no one will notice the similarity of armed people in brown clothing demanding total compliance to their political beliefs? I’m sure you can’t help it though.

This movement makes you feel like you have a home and are valued, and that’s a powerful motivator, especially to a total loser like you. I know your kind. You’ve always existed in society and you’ve just found a new outlet for your angst that doesn’t make you feel like the impotent coward you are. If this was 15 years ago, you would be that kid who sat in the back of the class wearing a “Ramones” vintage band shirt (even though you didn’t listen to their music) you bought at Hot Topic, a dog chain, and black eye-liner. You played 3rd trombone in the marching band for a year before quitting, and most of your memories from high school were of sitting by yourself writing suicide notes you never actually intended to follow through on, and cutting yourself for attention to the new Evanescence album. Meanwhile your mom was busy ignoring you and humping your step-dad constantly in the hopes that his seed would produce a better child that wasn’t a total failure before all her eggs rotted. You were that dweeb who had two friends since middle school and each new year you reinvented yourself as some edgy fringe ideology, because you desperately needed some sort of validation that proved you weren’t completely inadequate. Tough shit, the cheerleaders still dated the athletes and didn’t hang with friendless malcontents who bragged about being an Atheist, an Anarchist, a Socialist, and a Marxist. You’re just a new version of the last generation’s stereotypical loser who found a group of similar losers to hang with. You traded cutting yourself for lamenting your “white privilege” on Facebook. You traded the Emo/Goth attire for unnatural hair colors and a made-up gender identity. You traded screaming that you hate your parents for throwing bricks at a Bank of America because you hate Republicans. It looks like you kept the drugs though.

I could go on all day about how pathetic you all are and how your bullshit movement is
just another way for you to escape the real world and your many, many, personal faults… but I have another message for you. Please get more violent. Please don’t learn anything from getting your asses kicked…and double down. Please, for the love of God, pick up an actual weapon and declare yourselves violent enemies of the state. Give us red-blooded Americans the justification to really give you what you’ve been asking for with your constant threats, arson, and violent outbursts. Let’s really turn this into an old-school Communist revolution! I dare you. I double dare you. A whole lot of grunts would absolutely love to get a stateside kill, and the fact you shitbags always vote against us and protest our existence makes it that much sweeter. We kill people, and you aren’t even people – you’re communist heathens. You cowards always talk a big game, but you always fail on the follow-through- even your proposition for California secession failed. I guess parasites can’t long survive without their host.

You started this new age of political violence and for a while no one opposed you. I’m sure sucker-punching people and pepper-spraying women was fun for you while it lasted. Now however, there are those among your opposition prepared to meet your aggression in kind in defense of American ideals and the greatest document of human freedom ever created; the US Constitution. Your days of ganging up to beat people and pepper-spraying women with impunity are over. You think you’re on the right side of history and the masses are with you… What are you waiting for pussies? Let’s see what communism in blue hair and skinny jeans is all about.

I’ll say it again; shit or get off the pot.

– Iron Mike

Cool fake chain letter bro