Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace

[The2ndAmendment]

The bible is entirely the work of men.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

And so what if they actually were satan worshippers? They're protected by the 1st Amendment just like you are.[/B]

Of course they're protected by the 1st Amendment, as is our right to criticize them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wrong again. Your "know to be untrue" is your own übersimplistic failure to see your own fallacy of association, i.e. mistaking "Communism" for "power struggle". You assume that that fallacious premise has any legitimacy, which is why you're in the hole you're in right now. And I already covered this in post 461 anyway, dumbass.

It is an irrefutable fact that the Communists launched a purge of religion in Tibet. You are aware of this, you were aware of this prior to today. Ergo, you knew your claim that the "genocide by the communist had nothing to do with religion" to be false.

Correct. I know that to be false, since I never said that, don't know who you're quoting. Actually I don't know that anybody said that.

Write much fiction? Anybody buying?

---- All because you're too simple to see beyond the narrowmindedness of your own bullshit premise, and assume the same flawed premise must hold for everyone else. Holy shit, full of yourself much?

You can hold your breath and stomp your feet in your best Obama impression, the fact remains that you lied.

-- Which, again, is itself a lie, as demonstrated by your inability to come up with anything more solid than "yeah well if the Dalai Lama were here he'd tell you a thing or two" ".

Dishonest hackitude.

And damn right I negged you for calling me a liar, and I'll do it again. If you don't want negs, then quit flinging poo, little monkey. This is what you always do -- lose the argument, get challenged, can't meet the challenge and start flinging the poo.

Fuck you and everybody who flings like you.

Let me guess, someone hacked your account...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...fer-singing-amazing-grace-29.html#post9411708

You ARE a liar, you are also petty and small minded. You know it, the whole board knows it.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Wikipedia is not an academic source and yes it was politically motivated.

This is a message board, not a doctoral thesis, so unless you can refute the information provided, then give it a rest.

The Communist deliberately target religious groups. Stalin slaughtered Christians and Jews, Mao butchered Christians and Buddhists. Both sought to crush alternate loyalty.

Leftism is jealously totalitarian. The left, whether the Obamunists of America, or the Bolsheviks of Russia, seek to crush any group that provides alternative authority to the state. Communists hate religion because religion teaches that men are accountable to god as the ultimate authority. The left holds that the state is the ultimate authority and all loyalty must be to the state and by extension the rulers of the state. This is why leftists in America wage war on the 1st amendment and on the culture that supports Christian ideals.

Obama is a jealous god, thou shalt have no other god before him. But really it isn't Obama, he is just a figurehead for the almighty state. I follow no god, but I subscribe to reason, which the left hates just as much as they do god - for either proposition replaces the notion that the rulers of the left are the ultimate authority.

Thanks for thoroughly explaining how it was politically motivated.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thanks for thoroughly explaining how it was politically motivated.

Attacks on religion usually are. It was an attack on religion, though - in contradiction to your claim.

 

[Pogo]

The bible is entirely the work of men.

Are you only capable of posting pop culture videos in response to points you can't refute?

 

[Pogo]

It is an irrefutable fact that the Communists launched a purge of religion in Tibet. You are aware of this, you were aware of this prior to today. Ergo, you knew your claim that the "genocide by the communist had nothing to do with religion" to be false.

Correct. I know that to be false, since I never said that, don't know who you're quoting. Actually I don't know that anybody said that.

Write much fiction? Anybody buying?

You can hold your breath and stomp your feet in your best Obama impression, the fact remains that you lied.

-- Which, again, is itself a lie, as demonstrated by your inability to come up with anything more solid than "yeah well if the Dalai Lama were here he'd tell you a thing or two" ".

Dishonest hackitude.

And damn right I negged you for calling me a liar, and I'll do it again. If you don't want negs, then quit flinging poo, little monkey. This is what you always do -- lose the argument, get challenged, can't meet the challenge and start flinging the poo.

Fuck you and everybody who flings like you.

Let me guess, someone hacked your account...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...fer-singing-amazing-grace-29.html#post9411708

You ARE a liar, you are also petty and small minded. You know it, the whole board knows it.

Here's what "the whole board knows", Rachel...

What your link goes to:

Communism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. And you're way off topic. Which considering the abjectly silly premise, is an understandable retreat.

What your lying hypocritical dishonest ass claims I said, quoted directly above:

It is an irrefutable fact that the Communists launched a purge of religion in Tibet. You are aware of this, you were aware of this prior to today. Ergo, you knew your claim that the "genocide by the communist had nothing to do with religion" to be false.

--- Your lying ass changed my subject from "Communism" to "genocide". BUSTED.

We presume the last "communist" means "communists" (plural) since you're also too stupid to proofread your own stuff, but I whether singular or plural I brought up nothing about political power struggles, Tibet, or genocide. Your equation with "Communists", in a war about power and land, is, as noted throughout, your own fallacy. Which you then want to stuff in other people's mouths because you're too cerebrally challenged to come up with a cogent argument.

Dishonest hackmouth.

 

[Slyhunter]

I'd love to.

Here's the original post -- the board software wipes it out...



The first line "you libtards" not only drops ad hominem but lumps whatever group he's talking about into a single monolith. That's two fallacies right there, and we haven't even got to the strawmen yet.

The next is a litany of seven bullshit strawmen put into the collective mouth of the aforementioned entity -- speaking for them of course. As if somewhere on earth there's this, I dunno, species that just robotically spews all this in toto. Only a dolt who believes himself in such roboticity could entertain such a notion. Thus, "Seven Strawmen for Seven Dolts", a play on the play "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers".

I understood the reference to Seven Brides...

I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed that you would be commenting on the post to which you were responding rather than the preceding post. Since my post was merely a comment on the YouTube video contained in the previous post, your response seemed slightly out of place.

In any case, the video purports to show Democrats (at the Democratic National Convention) answering questions about positions that seem common to those who support the Democratic party. Perhaps "libtards" is a overgeneralization (I try not to use such terms myself,) but Democrats, like any other group of voluntary association, do tend to support some common positions. The video, again purports, to show Democrats supporting the positions in question.To say that the above positions are fallacious for no reason other than, "not all liberals think that" is similar to saying, "nuh uh!" If you doubt the authenticity of the video, you could point that out. If you do not support the positions described, you can point that out. You, however, cannot speak for others any more than the previous poster can. Since his post at least purports to show evidence that Democrats support the described positions and yours lacks any evidence at all, I'd say he came out ahead in that.

I didn't even watch the video. My comment was on the original list of seven strawmen, which addressed "libtards". Which I have to assume refers to Liberals -- not Democrats. Therefore whatever's in a video of a Democratic convention, if your starting point is Liberals, is irrelevant.

If the first poster is addressing Liberals, and then switches to Democrats, then that's moving the goalposts, which is yet another fallacy. And they remain strawmen anyway. So no, a poster who can't even decide which blanket he's statementing with, I don't think he "comes out ahead" of anything. That's a fallacy within another fallacy.

I'm confused. Name me one non-liberal Democrat.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What your link goes to:

Communism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. And you're way off topic. Which considering the abjectly silly premise, is an understandable retreat.

So, are you admitting that you lied? Did you grow a bit of integrity?

What your lying hypocritical dishonest ass claims I said, quoted directly above:

Are you denying that you wrote that?

Unfucking believable.

 

[Pogo]

I understood the reference to Seven Brides...

I (mistakenly, it seems) assumed that you would be commenting on the post to which you were responding rather than the preceding post. Since my post was merely a comment on the YouTube video contained in the previous post, your response seemed slightly out of place.

In any case, the video purports to show Democrats (at the Democratic National Convention) answering questions about positions that seem common to those who support the Democratic party. Perhaps "libtards" is a overgeneralization (I try not to use such terms myself,) but Democrats, like any other group of voluntary association, do tend to support some common positions. The video, again purports, to show Democrats supporting the positions in question.To say that the above positions are fallacious for no reason other than, "not all liberals think that" is similar to saying, "nuh uh!" If you doubt the authenticity of the video, you could point that out. If you do not support the positions described, you can point that out. You, however, cannot speak for others any more than the previous poster can. Since his post at least purports to show evidence that Democrats support the described positions and yours lacks any evidence at all, I'd say he came out ahead in that.

I didn't even watch the video. My comment was on the original list of seven strawmen, which addressed "libtards". Which I have to assume refers to Liberals -- not Democrats. Therefore whatever's in a video of a Democratic convention, if your starting point is Liberals, is irrelevant.

If the first poster is addressing Liberals, and then switches to Democrats, then that's moving the goalposts, which is yet another fallacy. And they remain strawmen anyway. So no, a poster who can't even decide which blanket he's statementing with, I don't think he "comes out ahead" of anything. That's a fallacy within another fallacy.

I'm confused. Name me one non-liberal Democrat.

Here's some suggestions... I'm not that familiar with Democrats; I'm familiar with Liberalism.

"Democrat" is a partisan term for a member of a political party, like "Republican". That doesn't tell us whether said Democrat or Republican is Liberal or not. Suffice to say Liberals do not believe in restricting those things as listed in the Seven Specious Strawmen. Leftists might, but that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Around here the Democrats are conservatives. I worked on one's campaign (Heath Shuler). And of course the Democratic Party for a century had a lock on the entire South with its ultraconservative wing that since went Republican. Same people, same voting bloc ... different party. Whatever works.

A political party is a machine to organize power. As such it flexes, bends, accommodates one way here, accommodates the opposite way there. Because its objective is power, not ideology. Ideology will always be secondary to power for a political machine. Parties are about practicality, attaining power by whatever means, and that means mutable. Ideologies are about idealism, and that means fixed. Parties change; ideologies don't.

So the poster started out with "libtards" and then apparently went to "Democrats". I chose the former, his starting point.

(/offtopic)

 

[sealybobo]

Cahnman's Musings: Texas Capital Abortion Supporters chant "Hail Satan"

"Hail satan"? Is the pro abortion group really going this route?

You know the question "If you could get free cable for life and all you would have to do is push a button and someone you don't know in another part of the world would die, would you do it?".

If I could push a button and all the people who have ever protested outside an abortion clinic would die, I would do it. And you wouldn't even need to give me the free cable.

 

[sealybobo]

Nobody getting an abortion needs to hear assholes singing Amazing Grace when they are walking into an abortion clinic.

"The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"

 

[Crystalclear]

They sure do. The witchhunt, Israel-Palestine War, the crusades and Protestant-Catholic wars in Europe caused a lot of casualties. Then all the people killed because they did not want to convert to another religion. Actually, almost all wars iin the Western world before 1800 were because of religious reasons. And in the rest of the world a lot of wars are still for religious reasons.

You are obviously both stupid and uneducated - so we know you voted for Obama twice.



Still, the Crusades were a drop in the bucket compared to the genocide of Stalin. Casualties in the hundreds at most battles. Stalin and Mao were slaughtering millions at a time.



Now if you were smart, you wouldn't be a leftist. BUT let's pretend it's possible to be smart and a leftist. If that were the case, you would blame the lack of sophisticated weapons and stammer that those you are trained to hate WOULD have killed as many as your beloved comrades, if only they had access to machine guns and Zylon B as your heroes did...

I'm not from the USA and if I would be I would probably not have voted for Obama.
About the crusades you are right and that genocides caused more deaths, even though millions at a time, no. This doesn't mean that they were not terrible dictators.
The point I am making is that almost all of the wars are being fought by religious people. Religion has caused a lot of wars and violence over the past. To deny that is just plain ignorant. And later in the post you mention Zylon B. If you are so smart as you claim to be, you probably knew that the Nazis were conservative, very supportive of Christianity and hated communism.

 

[GISMYS]

LOW LIFE " Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace " THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE KIND OF PEOPLE pro abortionists ARE=TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS OF SATAN ON THE ROOAD TO HELL!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

LOW LIFE " Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace " THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE KIND OF PEOPLE pro abortionists ARE=TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS OF SATAN ON THE ROOAD TO HELL!!

Welcome to the Party ... Democrats have a very big tent...

 

[Crystalclear]

LOW LIFE " Pro abortionists chant "Hail satan" in response to pro lifer singing Amazing Grace " THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE KIND OF PEOPLE pro abortionists ARE=TOOLS,FOOLS,PUPPETS OF SATAN ON THE ROOAD TO HELL!!

Batshit crazy

 

[GISMYS]

Could the Woman Who Started Roe v. Wade Bring the Abortion Law Down?
Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in the Famous Legal Case, Now Has a Different Stance on Abortion. The woman who was behind the original case can still make inroads if she has a President or Vice President backing her and a conservative court to make it a reality. Plus, if it doesn't happen now, it'll happen later when we inevitably get a conservative pro-life President in the White House in the next decade. After all, McCorvey is only 61 as of this writing and has plenty of years left to mark her influence.

 

[sealybobo]

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself?
"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion”
"I've had several cases in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization”
"In 1990, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'"
" Just last week a woman announced she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion.."
"We saw a woman who after four attempts and many hours of counseling both at the hospital and our clinic, finally, calmly and uneventfully, had her abortion. Four months later, she called me on Christmas Eve to tell me that she was not and never was pro-choice and that we failed to recognize that she was clinically depressed at the time."
"we had a 'pro-life' activist have an abortion. Later, she told someone on my staff that she thought abortion is murder, that she is a murderer, and that she is murdering her baby. So before doing her procedure, I asked her if she thought abortion is murder - the answer was yes. I asked her if she thought I am a murderer, and if she thought I would be murdering her baby, and she said yes. But murder is a crime, and murderers are executed. Is this a crime? Well, it should be, she said.
" He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby…
"I had a patient about ten years ago who traveled up to New York City from South Carolina for an abortion. I asked her why she went such a long way to get the procedure. Her answer was that she was a member of a church group that didn't believe in abortion and she didn't want anyone to know she was having one.
"She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice
"A 21 year old woman and her mother shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now.
"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does."

 

[sealybobo]

Could the Woman Who Started Roe v. Wade Bring the Abortion Law Down?
Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in the Famous Legal Case, Now Has a Different Stance on Abortion. The woman who was behind the original case can still make inroads if she has a President or Vice President backing her and a conservative court to make it a reality. Plus, if it doesn't happen now, it'll happen later when we inevitably get a conservative pro-life President in the White House in the next decade. After all, McCorvey is only 61 as of this writing and has plenty of years left to mark her influence.

Then how will all the anti choice women get their abortions?

 

[Peach]

A sad, disgusting response. Respect the beliefs of others, or all fail.