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

[Pogo]

You do realize the Republicans won over the south when the southern democrats went along with civil rights, right? So in essence those "southern democrats" are today's red neck poor hick southern christians.




Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Comrade, then those democrats who promoted Jim Crown and hatred based on skin
color, they all became Republicans, right?

I mean Fritz Hollings - Republican, right? No?

Well, Albert Gore - Republican, right? No?

Bull Connor?

Orval Faubus?

Surely KKK Grand Klegal Robert Byrd?

No?

Oh, I get it, you were just lying through your fucking teeth!

Hey, you're a Communist, it's what you do!

Even Reagan used racism to win elections

Sure he did, Cletus.

We know you Obama worshiping Communists would never play the race card...

Obviously history's not your strong suit, Pothead. The poster referred to "civil rights", meaning CRA 1964. So you pulled all pre-'64 people out of your ass. Courageous.

What happens after '64?

Strom Thurmond -- yes.
Trent Lott -- yes.
Jesse Helms -- yes.
Richard Shelby -- yes.
David Duke -- yes.

Google is your friend. And say, for a guy who claims to have no party, you sure devote all your Emmanuel Goldstein erections in one direction.

Just an observation, coincidence I'm sure.

 

[Zmrzlina]

It could be proven that there is no God, and the fact that intentionally ending human life is murder would not change. How many times do you thick headed people have to be told that it's not a religious issue, it's a moral issue. You and your ilk will continue to paint it as a 'religious' issue until the end of time because you think that's the card to keep playing to justify it as 'law'. So try arguing your position without using the constant 'religion' card, if you can.

As for the bolded, when you progressives start practicing what you 'preach', maybe your opinion will have merrit, altho doubtful.

Without religion you have no argument. It'd be like me saying it is immoral to cook a chicken egg.

Murder is against the law, nothing religious about it dipshit.

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

 

[Pogo]

I'm pretty sure that a "Progressive" is anyone who does not prefer that the USA remain exactly as it was in about 1850.

Close, but not quite.

A "progressive" is someone who doesn't want the Constitution to remain the way it was in 1786, nor the Bill of Rights to remain at all.

This may be the first time anyone's dared to answer that question -- even if it wasn't the poster who invoked it.

On what do you base this? Where have you seen anyone advocating the removal of the Bill of Rights?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The above unhinged, for those who just walked in, is the reason I refer to the poster as "Pothead" -- Pol Pot.

And I refer to you as "huffer" due to the Sterno you huff...

Nevertheless, to that previous subtangent on "Liberal" versus "Democrat", Pothead here does show signs that he at least understands the difference between "Liberal" and "leftist" -- notice he consistently specifies the latter here. So it ain't just my idea. [MENTION=46745]Mathbud1[/MENTION]

The issue is that there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you Khmer Rouge democrats.

You have nothing in common with Jefferson, Adams, Payne, et al. You promote a central authoritarian system of collectivist thought more consistent with Marx, Mao, and Ho. Libertarians, moderates, and conservatives have been cowed by the left, allowing the left to control the language. We may not refer to those seeking to place control of the means of production in the hands of the central authority "Communist," good Gaia we might upset them...

Except that it IS the correct term, those who advocate for state control of the means of production, such as Silly Bonobo who advocates "single payer," are in fact Communists.

Now, I did not call YOU a Communist, because for all your faults, I have not seen YOU advocate for the means of production to be controlled by the state.

Jillian and the shrimp-chimp have.

Having noted that, Pothead's post is as usual myopic; he wishes to pin this "party of death" on one side, completely ignoring that the same side he describes opposes little things like gun violence and capital punishment, as if these are not part of a death culture and, I dunno, "don't count".

So, capital punishment which puts to death those convicted of a crime, with full legal representation and judicial review; is the same as the killing on the unborn with no conviction of crime, no legal representation of the victim, and no legal review?

 

[Mathbud1]

Yours is a culture of death so I don't doubt your words. For the record, if the tables were turned I'd be willing to push a button as well (after the death cultists were found guilty in a court of law for their horrendous crimes against humanity).

Despite his idiocy, Silly Bonobo demonstrates exactly the attitude of those earlier democrats in the South. It is a callous disregard for life.

If we wonder how the holocaust, purges, and killing fields happened, we need only read the words of Silly Bonobo. The evil of Jim Crow is identical to the evil of the Khmer Rouge, it is ultimately the contempt for life. Jillian and chimp boi demonstrate exactly the same contempt for life here.

Leftism, the desire to strip others of liberty, and concentrate assets in the hands of the central elite, is further manifestation of this same basic contempt for life. The view of the democrats today is identical to the view of the Khmer Rouge, that people are nothing but disposable assets, property of the state, to be disposed of as the state desires. While Jillian may advocate for rights for various groups, as a craftsman will detail the care of various tools, the concept that individuals have rights runs contrary to the view that we are simply cogs, with no value beyond the function we perform in service to the state and the rulers of the state.

I openly call the democrats Communists, and refer to them as the Khmer Rouge, i do this because it is the bitter truth, it is the reality of the party. Abortion is but a manifestation of the basic position of the party that life is without value. A baby is an unformed tool, discarding it has no impact on the workings of the machinery of the state, thus the democrat cannot conceive of objections to disposing of the unwanted without a thought. The reality is that leftist is the rejection of the idea that life has value in it's own right, that man qua man is sufficient.

The above unhinged, for those who just walked in, is the reason I refer to the poster as "Pothead" -- Pol Pot.

Nevertheless, to that previous subtangent on "Liberal" versus "Democrat", Pothead here does show signs that he at least understands the difference between "Liberal" and "leftist" -- notice he consistently specifies the latter here. So it ain't just my idea. [MENTION=46745]Mathbud1[/MENTION]

Having noted that, Pothead's post is as usual myopic; he wishes to pin this "party of death" on one side, completely ignoring that the same side he describes opposes little things like gun violence and capital punishment, as if these are not part of a death culture and, I dunno, "don't count".

It isn't that I don't understand the difference between "liberal" and "leftist" or between "liberal" and "democrat."

Traditionaly speaking, liberalism is about liberty. But you have to work with terminology that is accepted and understood in your own time. These days, those who self-identify as liberal overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
2000 - 80% CNN.com - Election 2000 - Results

2004 - 85% CNN.com Election 2004

2006 - 87% CNN.com - Elections 2006

So using the common parlance of the day, it is not uncommon to call Democrats liberal.

I understand that liberal is an ideology and not a party. I also understand that what one person understands to be "liberal" is not necessarily what the next person understands it to be.

Again, that's all really semantic and doesn't, in my opinion, justify dismissing an entire post because the person used a label you disagree with to describe a group of people.

 

[Crystalclear]

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.

To claim that collectivist totalitarians were "conservative" sort of defines "igrnoant." Though "duplicitous" is probably more accurate.

They were conservative, you ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obviously history's not your strong suit, Pothead. The poster referred to "civil rights", meaning CRA 1964. So you pulled all pre-'64 people out of your ass. Courageous.

What happens after '64?

Strom Thurmond -- yes.
Trent Lott -- yes.
Jesse Helms -- yes.
Richard Shelby -- yes.
David Duke -- yes.

Google is your friend. And say, for a guy who claims to have no party, you sure devote all your Emmanuel Goldstein erections in one direction.

Just an observation, coincidence I'm sure.

Lying again, Huffer?

Trent Lott switched from demoKKKrat to Republican, right Huffer? Except that he was never a democrat in the first place...

Trent Lott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nor was Lott a Segregationist.

Okay, what about Jesse Helms?

Nope, his first run at Senate in 1972 was as a Republican.

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well then, Shelby?

Nope, ran for the Alabama Senate as a Republican in 1970.

Richard Shelby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, at least you have David Duke, the perennial scumbag that he is. And FINALLY you have someone who ran as a democrat.

Except that Duke switch from Republican to democrat.....

So that leaves you with Strom Thurmond, the ONLY segregationist to ever switch to the GOP. Hundreds remained democrats, yet y'all LOVE to tell the lie that somehow the positions of the parties changed. That democrats were Republicans and Republicans were democrats, a steaming pile in the best light - but downright stupid when the light of truth is shined on it.

Can anyone imagine Trent Lott supporting the WPA or the attempt to subvert the SCOTUS?

ROFL.

Try again huffer, that lie sank like a lead balloon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

So, if Dear Leader issued an Executive Order declaring contract killings legal, no one would have cause to object to them on a moral basis?

Putting Jews in ovens was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany - yet many still consider that murder. Explain how that is possible....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm pretty sure that a "Progressive" is anyone who does not prefer that the USA remain exactly as it was in about 1850.

Close, but not quite.

A "progressive" is someone who doesn't want the Constitution to remain the way it was in 1786, nor the Bill of Rights to remain at all.

This may be the first time anyone's dared to answer that question -- even if it wasn't the poster who invoked it.

On what do you base this? Where have you seen anyone advocating the removal of the Bill of Rights?

Uh, the Hobby Lobby case is entirely about the attempt of the Administration to subvert the 1st Amendment.

The democratic party are engaged in a hot war against the Bill of Rights.

 

[Mathbud1]

Without religion you have no argument. It'd be like me saying it is immoral to cook a chicken egg.

Murder is against the law, nothing religious about it dipshit.

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

You are right. It is just baby-killing. No biggie. Totally nothing in common with murder. At all. (sarcasm intended)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm pretty sure that a "Progressive" is anyone who does not prefer that the USA remain exactly as it was in about 1850.

Close, but not quite.

A "progressive" is someone who doesn't want the Constitution to remain the way it was in 1786, nor the Bill of Rights to remain at all.

Incorrect.

In fact, progressives are strong advocates of the Bill of Rights, where every American must be allowed to realize his comprehensive civil liberties, as progressives have fought for decades to protect the civil rights of every American – from opposing segregation in the 1950s to the struggle for civil rights for gay Americans today.

Unfortunately, it's conservatives and others on the right who, for the most part, seek to deny Americans their civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, such as women their right to privacy and gay Americans the right to due process of the law.

Progressives also correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers. And progressives correctly understand that the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' that the principles of liberty and justice for all Americans codified by the Founding Document are enduring and immutable, the font of freedom and liberty for every generation of American to draw from in his search for greater freedom.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

So, if Dear Leader issued an Executive Order declaring contract killings legal, no one would have cause to object to them on a moral basis?

Putting Jews in ovens was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany - yet many still consider that murder. Explain how that is possible....

Fetuses are not biologically independent, therefore not alive according to both medical science and court precedent.

 

[Pogo]

The above unhinged, for those who just walked in, is the reason I refer to the poster as "Pothead" -- Pol Pot.

And I refer to you as "huffer" due to the Sterno you huff...

That would be more invention then, as I've never posted about Sterno. Until this post I had no idea what the fuck you were mumbling incoherently about. I doubt anyone else did either.

Nevertheless, to that previous subtangent on "Liberal" versus "Democrat", Pothead here does show signs that he at least understands the difference between "Liberal" and "leftist" -- notice he consistently specifies the latter here. So it ain't just my idea. [MENTION=46745]Mathbud1[/MENTION]

The issue is that there is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you Khmer Rouge democrats.

That's neither here nor there. It was a comment directed at somebody else, noting that you, Pothead, DID appear to understand that "Liberals" are not "leftists". I know it's going out on a limb to posit that there actually exists something on earth you understand, but I'm kind of a daring guy.

You have nothing in common with Jefferson, Adams, Payne, et al. You promote a central authoritarian system of collectivist thought more consistent with Marx, Mao, and Ho.

Uh - really. Where do I do that?

This oughta be almost as good as Rachel Carson ....

Libertarians, moderates, and conservatives have been cowed by the left, allowing the left to control the language. We may not refer to those seeking to place control of the means of production in the hands of the central authority "Communist," good Gaia we might upset them...

Except that it IS the correct term, those who advocate for state control of the means of production, such as Silly Bonobo who advocates "single payer," are in fact Communists.

zzzzzzzzzz....

Now, I did not call YOU a Communist, because for all your faults, I have not seen YOU advocate for the means of production to be controlled by the state.

Then you've contradicted the previous part of this post and already conceded you have nothing.

Yanno it might be more efficient to not stick your foot in your mouth in the first place.

Jillian and the shrimp-chimp have.

I only know one shrimper on this forum, and I respect him. But he's not here.

Having noted that, Pothead's post is as usual myopic; he wishes to pin this "party of death" on one side, completely ignoring that the same side he describes opposes little things like gun violence and capital punishment, as if these are not part of a death culture and, I dunno, "don't count".

So, capital punishment which puts to death those convicted of a crime, with full legal representation and judicial review; is the same as the killing on the unborn with no conviction of crime, no legal representation of the victim, and no legal review?

Dunno. Did I say that? NO...

Wacko.

 

[Zmrzlina]

Murder is against the law, nothing religious about it dipshit.

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

You are right. It is just baby-killing. No biggie. Totally nothing in common with murder. At all. (sarcasm intended)

Babies are biologically independent, fetuses are not.

 

[sealybobo]

No surprise. Leftists are caring and compassionate............at least until you disagree with them.....then they break out the knives. Think it's bad now? When they lose the Senate in November they'll crank up the hatred to 11.

We always lose midterms. We'll get it all back in 16. Hillary 2016!

Virtually every midterm is lost by the party in the White House. There have been like three times that didn't happen, since the Civil War. It's historical pattern.

Plus look at how many people show up to midterms. Republicans are smart in one way. They show up to vote every 2 years.

2012 53.6%
2010 37.8%
2008 56.8
2006 37.1
2004 55.3
2002 37.0
2000 51.3

And Democrats win in Presidential election years. Don't count 2000 or 2004 because Gore won the popular vote at minimum. I say Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 but that's a dirty little secret this country will never admit. Certainly the corporate media didn't say a word about it.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm pretty sure that a "Progressive" is anyone who does not prefer that the USA remain exactly as it was in about 1850.

Close, but not quite.

A "progressive" is someone who doesn't want the Constitution to remain the way it was in 1786, nor the Bill of Rights to remain at all.

Incorrect.

In fact, progressives are strong advocates of the Bill of Rights, where every American must be allowed to realize his comprehensive civil liberties, as progressives have fought for decades to protect the civil rights of every American – from opposing segregation in the 1950s to the struggle for civil rights for gay Americans today.

Unfortunately, it's conservatives and others on the right who, for the most part, seek to deny Americans their civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, such as women their right to privacy and gay Americans the right to due process of the law.

Progressives also correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers. And progressives correctly understand that the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' that the principles of liberty and justice for all Americans codified by the Founding Document are enduring and immutable, the font of freedom and liberty for every generation of American to draw from in his search for greater freedom.

Garbage--they only believe in their own interpretation and insure that happens they support every single activist judge they can find.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They were conservative, you ignorant.

What part is "conservative," the collectivism, or the totalitarianism?

Look, the "Nazis are right wing" is a long standing "big lie" program, promoted by America's own Goebbles, Edward Murrow. But it's fucking stupid - it makes no logical sense at all. The managed economy of Hitler's Reich is exactly the opposite of "conservative."

Yes, you chant this as a mantra, but to the sentient in the room, it is fucking retarded.

 

[BobPlumb]

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

So, if Dear Leader issued an Executive Order declaring contract killings legal, no one would have cause to object to them on a moral basis?

Putting Jews in ovens was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany - yet many still consider that murder. Explain how that is possible....

Fetuses are not biologically independent, therefore not alive according to both medical science and court precedent.

Time to update the biology texts and websites. To be alive an organism has to be "biologically independent".

 

[Mathbud1]

Good thing abortion isn't murder.

So, if Dear Leader issued an Executive Order declaring contract killings legal, no one would have cause to object to them on a moral basis?

Putting Jews in ovens was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany - yet many still consider that murder. Explain how that is possible....

Fetuses are not biologically independent, therefore not alive according to both medical science and court precedent.

The sad justification for killing babies: saying they aren't really babies yet.

 

[sealybobo]

Close, but not quite.

A "progressive" is someone who doesn't want the Constitution to remain the way it was in 1786, nor the Bill of Rights to remain at all.

Incorrect.

In fact, progressives are strong advocates of the Bill of Rights, where every American must be allowed to realize his comprehensive civil liberties, as progressives have fought for decades to protect the civil rights of every American – from opposing segregation in the 1950s to the struggle for civil rights for gay Americans today.

Unfortunately, it's conservatives and others on the right who, for the most part, seek to deny Americans their civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights, such as women their right to privacy and gay Americans the right to due process of the law.

Progressives also correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, where the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, determine what the Constitution means, as originally intended by the Framers. And progressives correctly understand that the Constitution is neither 'living' nor 'static,' that the principles of liberty and justice for all Americans codified by the Founding Document are enduring and immutable, the font of freedom and liberty for every generation of American to draw from in his search for greater freedom.

Garbage--they only believe in their own interpretation and insure that happens they support every single activist judge they can find.

Like Alito & Roberts or do you mean like all the extreme right wing attorneys bush appointed at a very peculiar time?

The attorneys Bush fired were fired because they wouldn't do his political bidding.

U.S. Attorney Firings Investigation - washingtonpost.com