One day America will adopt a life ethic, and all pro-abort leaders will be shamed

Regardless, the discussion was about being pro life or pro choice, and how each position characterizes women.

Pro Choice ALLOWS WOMEN CHOICE. The pro life position does not. So tell us, which one more represents freedom for women?
Well....again...that's like saying that legalizing brutal rape "respresents freedom for men". Sorry - but that is not "freedom". Your rights end where mine begins. And a woman's rights end where that babies right to life begins.

Your nonsensical attempt to paint murder as freedom fails miserably my friend.
 
Bwaaahahahaha!!! Where should I start? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic with Thomas Jefferson. Ever heard of Sally Hemmings? Doubt it. It was his slave that he knocked up.
Well....you sure as hell shouldn't start with Sally Hemmings GaryDog. For one, those accusations regard a period after the death of Thomas Jefferson's wife. And two, DNA exonerated Thomas Jefferson from that progressive propaganda that he had anything to do with Sally Hemmings.

You're astoundingly ignorant buttercup. Even by normal progressive standards.

:dance::dance::dance:
 
Last edited:
Herman Cain groped his way up the Godfather's Pizza ladder
Herman Cain was never elected to anything - much less president of the United States. Struggling to follow along here, are we? Or just struggling to find conservatives that acted like the progressives who conduct themselves as dogs in heat while they occupy the Oval Office?

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
[
Well that certainly shut Seawytch up fast! :lol:

Realizing you are a crazy person who can't be reasoned with? Yeah. Pretty much.

Okay, for all you "Pro-Life" conservatives, when are you going to advocate putting the women who have abortions in prison?

Come on, no mealymouth shit about the women being 'victims'. When a person hires a hit man, we go after the person hiring the hit man, not just the hit man himself.

If you guys believe the shit you spew about a kidney bean sized fetus having a soul and all the God given rights assigned by slave rapists in powdered wigs, you should really be totally on board, amiright?
 
Well....you sure as hell shouldn't start with Sally Hemmings GaryDog. For one, those accusations regard a period after the death of Thomas Jefferson's wife. And two, DNA exonerated Thomas Jefferson from that progressive propaganda that he had anything to do with Sally Hemmings.

You're astoundingly ignorant buttercup. Even by normal progressive standards.

Poodle, the Jefferson Museum in Monticello admits Jefferson was tapping that.

Sally Hemings | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

Sally Hemings had at least six children, who are now believed to have been fathered by Thomas Jefferson many years after the death of his wife. According to Jefferson's records, four survived to adulthood. Beverly (b. 1798), a carpenter and fiddler, was allowed to leave the plantation in late 1821 or early 1822 and, according to his brother, passed into white society in Washington, D.C. Harriet(b. 1801), a spinner in Jefferson's textile shop, also left Monticello in 1821 or 1822, probably with her brother, and passed for white. Madison Hemings (1805-1878), a carpenter and joiner, was given his freedom in Jefferson's will; he resettled in southern Ohio in 1836, where he worked at his trade and had a farm. Eston Hemings (1808-ca. 1856), also a carpenter, moved to Chillicothe, Ohio, in the 1830s. There he was a well-known professional musician before moving about 1852 to Wisconsin, where he changed his surname to Jefferson along with his racial identity. Both Madison and Eston Hemings made known their belief that they were sons of Thomas Jefferson.
 
So you still don't have links? Why am I not surprised.
I'm waiting for you to promise to admit you are astoundingly ignorant about what is going on in the world and a liar when I do. What are you so afraid of Seawytch?!? :dunno:

Why on earth would I do that? I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, you are. Can't produce, puppy? So shocking...
Why wouldn't you? You're popping your mouth off that something "isn't true" (when it is) so why would you not put your money where your mouth is? I've never seen you this scared. Just say the words and you'all have the links (which I've posted before and I know you've seen). You got caught lying so now you're looking for a stalemate.
 
So you still don't have links? Why am I not surprised.
I'm waiting for you to promise to admit you are astoundingly ignorant about what is going on in the world and a liar when I do. What are you so afraid of Seawytch?!? :dunno:

Why on earth would I do that? I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, you are. Can't produce, puppy? So shocking...
Why wouldn't you? You're popping your mouth off that something "isn't true" (when it is) so why would you not put your money where your mouth is? I've never seen you this scared. Just say the words and you'all have the links (which I've posted before and I know you've seen). You got caught lying so now you're looking for a stalemate.


All I said was provide the links or you're lying. You've yet to provide these credible links you claim to have. Methinks you've got bunk and are deflecting. Prove me wrong.
 

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

First of all, thank you for your service. But it's odd - Someone with your background doesn't know that neither the military nor gun manufacturers use the term "Assault weapon." It's a made up term used by anti gun crowd to demonize gun ownership. But let's defer to our Founding Fathers who put the 2nd Amendment in place:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

We should be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere we want. Anywhere.
 
When Im on the trail I carry. People look at me weird and ask with an attitude "why do you carry a gun"? I say "to protect life and to make myself equal to everything around me". They dont know what to say...what IS there to say to that. Why wouldnt want to protect life? Why wouldnt you want to be equal?
 
Holy shit. P@triot might be the dumbest poster here. Wow.

Yes, the Sally Hemmings stories are real. Yes, Thomas Jefferson essentially raped a woman who was his property. But I see you're defending it on the grounds that his wife was dead. Hmmm, ok.

You disqualify Herman Cain because he never held office? Dumbass, you're the one who dared me to list GOP CANDIDATES (and presidents) who were morally bankrupt. I think I gave you like 10. You were wrong in your defense of one, and didn't bother to defend the other 9 or so.

LOL
 
When Im on the trail I carry. People look at me weird and ask with an attitude "why do you carry a gun"? I say "to protect life and to make myself equal to everything around me". They dont know what to say...what IS there to say to that. Why wouldnt want to protect life? Why wouldnt you want to be equal?

I think they just can't believe what a dumbass you are. But feel free to interpret it as admiration if you want.
 
Methinks you've got bunk and are deflecting.
Well if that were true you would have absolutely no problem promising to admit you are extremely ignorant of current events and that you're a liar if I'm able to produce the links. But yet you're unwilling to do that. Why? :dunno:

(Because you've seen them before when I've posted them)
 
Methinks you've got bunk and are deflecting.
Well if that were true you would have absolutely no problem promising to admit you are extremely ignorant of current events and that you're a liar if I'm able to produce the links. But yet you're unwilling to do that. Why? :dunno:

(Because you've seen them before when I've posted them)

It's interesting you're not more enamoured with Trump...because you're very much like him.

Since I don't read every post you make, you cannot be guaranteed that I've seen these links you've yet to produce. I'm certainly not going to go search every stupid thing you've said for these links you still have not been able to produce. I believe you're deflecting because you can't produce what you claim. You're still deflecting.

I'm just going to assume, since you can't produce these links, that they don't exist and you're lying. You could prove me wrong anytime, but you're not so I we'll just say you were lying and be done with it. Ciao!
 

Forum List

Back
Top