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

[Zmrzlina]

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".

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And to be fair I'm not saying you don't understand the difference; I don't know that. I'm saying the original poster of that post (GHook) doesn't --- as his ignorant conflation of "Liberal" ('libtard') with "Democrat" makes amply clear.

It may be "common" to synonymize "Liberal" and "Democrat". It's also common to hear people call electricity "electric" as if the adjective is a noun. That doesn't make either one accurate. If we think we mean the same thing by two different words, then words cease to have meaning.

As noted previously, such terms are used as undefined rhetorical weapons to evoke some kind of slur, regardless the actual intrinsic meaning. That's why it's so ironic to watch posters like GHook gobbledegooking himself into a corner with terms like "libtard", blissfully unaware that Liberalism is what founded this country. As I said I don't think he has a clue of the nuances of what he speaks, so yes I think I can dismiss the post on that basis.

 

[BobPlumb]

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.

Shouldn't the case law exist in context of the constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Incorrect.

In fact, progressives are strong advocates of the Bill of Rights,

As we can tell with the Hobby Lobby case, where you "progressives" attempted to crush the 1st Amendment...

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.

Because the Bill of Rights speaks of "privacy," Saul? And because an action done at a public medical facility is "private," Saul?

ROFL

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.

So then, there is no law, only the dictates of 9 unelected rulers?

I agree that this is the position of leftists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wasn't this thread about abortion?

 

[guno]

Satan is a christian loon bat invention to keep the Lower IQ in line, won't surprise me if that person was a plant form the nutters to begin with

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Avoiding the question fails to support your fallacious position.

Abortion is legal, because unelected judges created law from whole cloth in violation of the United States Constitution. This is your foundation for the fact that Abortion is not murder.

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

 

[BobPlumb]

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".

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

I agree with you on that last statement. The innocent and defenseless fetus has no voice and is deprived of the rights of a person post birth. But to deny that a fetus is alive is to deny medical science.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

The Constitution exists in the exact context that it was written, and only through Article V can it be amended to alter it's meaning.

The Supreme Court is not the ultimate authority on the Constitution, The People, via a Trial by Jury of their Peers, are the ultimate authority on the Constitution. Not even the Supreme Court can overturn an acquittal by a Jury.

I consider Trial by Jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

-- U.S. President Thomas Jefferson; Author of the Declaration of Independence.

[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] why do you always repeat this lie on USMB and I always have to correct you, are you continuing to deliberately lie on USMB or are you incapable of learning and retaining from a car accident or something?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

I'm sure everyone here understood it was an in-kind insult to your "pot head" idiocy.

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.



Uh - really. Where do I do that?

As I note later, you personally do not. "You" is often used to denote a group, in this case democrats.

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



zzzzzzzzzz....



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

Nope, merely clarified the distinction between you personally, and the generic democrats spoken of earlier.

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

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

Look up what a Bonobo is, i'm sure you'll catch on...

Dunno. Did I say that? NO...

Yeah, you pretty much did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

How about "human offspring?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

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".

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

After birth, an infant remains dependent on the mother for survival. I agree that someone here needs an introduction to biology.

Let me ask you, is a fetus a living human?

 

[Zmrzlina]

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

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

I agree with you on that last statement. The innocent and defenseless fetus has no voice and is deprived of the rights of a person post birth. But to deny that a fetus is alive is to deny medical science.

It is unable to live without a host.

 

[guno]

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.

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

Even Reagan used racism to win elections

Exclusive: Lee Atwater?s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy | The Nation

Yep reagan announced his run for the presidency in Philadelphia Mississippi (where the three civil rights workers were murdered) and he invoked states rights. and Lee atwater the heasd of the republican party in 1981

 

[Zmrzlina]

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

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

After birth, an infant remains dependent on the mother for survival. I agree that someone here needs an introduction to biology.

Nope. Sure it requires food and nutrients be provided for it but does it require it's mother to be it's host to survive after birth. The answer is no.

Let me ask you, is a fetus a living human?

Nope. Humans are biological independent of a host.

 

[Zmrzlina]

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

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

After birth, an infant remains dependent on the mother for survival. I agree that someone here needs an introduction to biology.

Nope. Sure, it requires food and care be provided for it but does it require it's mother to be it's direct host to survive after birth? The answer is no.

Let me ask you, is a fetus a living human?

Nope. Humans are biological independent of a host.

 

[Zmrzlina]

I know that bodily autonomy is a tough subject for some to grasp but you either own your body or you don't.

 

[BobPlumb]

The living, breathing, person not relying on a host for survival has more rights than a fetus.

After birth, an infant remains dependent on the mother for survival. I agree that someone here needs an introduction to biology.

Nope. Sure it requires food and nutrients be provided for it but does it require it's mother to be it's host to survive after birth. The answer is no.

Let me ask you, is a fetus a living human?

Nope. Humans are biological independent of a host.

A human fetus is......well, human! It is also alive.... Unless it dies. Are you enjoying making up stuff?

 

[shart_attack]

Satan is a christian loon bat invention to keep the Lower IQ in line, won't surprise me if that person was a plant form [sic] the nutters to begin with

So he's kinda like the role you play here for the boys at stormfront.org, huh, Sherlock?

 

[guno]

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence.