Republicans and Abortion Part 2

[Soggy in NOLA]

Considering you are the one who brought up our poor people, I figured you would understand that when we talk about being "hungry" we are not talking about the day to day hunger we all feel when we need to eat, but "hunger" as a way of living over the long term, of being so poor one cannot meet thier caloric requirements over weeks and months, hunger as a state of living, not as a biological warning to eat.

It is in this comparsion, where the concept of our obese poor people being "hungry" does not make any sense, and it is this version of "hungry (i.e. starving)" that most of the rest of the worlds poor deals with in a day to day basis.

Hungry isn't enough then you're talking about more suffering. Is this also in an "international sense" or talking about America? Going hungry for weeks and months isn't common in America.

Of course you can shape the debate in any way to dismiss it. For example: Americans aren't fat on an "multi-species" scale. Sea Loins are fatter.
The guy living in a box isn't poor on a "historic scale"...3 pennies was a lot of money in the 1800's.

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

Not to mention, WTF is s sea loin?

The stupid runs deep in that one.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hungry isn't enough then you're talking about more suffering. Is this also in an "international sense" or talking about America? Going hungry for weeks and months isn't common in America.

Of course you can shape the debate in any way to dismiss it. For example: Americans aren't fat on an "multi-species" scale. Sea Loins are fatter.
The guy living in a box isn't poor on a "historic scale"...3 pennies was a lot of money in the 1800's.

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

Not to mention, WTF is s sea loin?

The stupid runs deep in that one.

I'm stupid and you don't know what a sea lion is?

 

[Zoom-boing]

No child should suffer, be it from hunger or from being sucked out of the uterus. The hungry child can be fed. The aborted child, however, is dead. It's sad that you can't see this.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Considering you are the one who brought up our poor people, I figured you would understand that when we talk about being "hungry" we are not talking about the day to day hunger we all feel when we need to eat, but "hunger" as a way of living over the long term, of being so poor one cannot meet thier caloric requirements over weeks and months, hunger as a state of living, not as a biological warning to eat.

It is in this comparsion, where the concept of our obese poor people being "hungry" does not make any sense, and it is this version of "hungry (i.e. starving)" that most of the rest of the worlds poor deals with in a day to day basis.

Hungry isn't enough then you're talking about more suffering. Is this also in an "international sense" or talking about America? Going hungry for weeks and months isn't common in America.

Of course you can shape the debate in any way to dismiss it. For example: Americans aren't fat on an "multi-species" scale. Sea Loins are fatter.
The guy living in a box isn't poor on a "historic scale"...3 pennies was a lot of money in the 1800's.

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

You keep changing the argument. We are talking about Americans based on American standards aren't we?

If not we can start comparing Americans to other countries, species etc in order to further frame the argument like comparing fat people to sea lions. On Averages Americans are healthy compared to Sea Lions the same way they aren't hungry on an international scale.

Sorry, are you the only one allowed to frame the debate the way YOU want it?

 

[Stephanie]

No child should suffer, be it from hunger or from being sucked out of the uterus. The hungry child can be fed. The aborted child, however, is dead. It's sad that you can't see this.

well said, and shows just how sad they are

they are despicable human beings

 

[ClosedCaption]

No child should suffer, be it from hunger or from being sucked out of the uterus. The hungry child can be fed. The aborted child, however, is dead. It's sad that you can't see this.

Cant see what?

Don't be so emotional and you'd make more sense. It seems as if you think someone here doesn't know what abortion means. If you thought that, I apologize for you not understanding

 

[Zoom-boing]

No child should suffer, be it from hunger or from being sucked out of the uterus. The hungry child can be fed. The aborted child, however, is dead. It's sad that you can't see this.

Cant see what?

Don't be so emotional and you'd make more sense. It seems as if you think someone here doesn't know what abortion means. If you thought that, I apologize for you not understanding

 

[ClosedCaption]

No child should suffer, be it from hunger or from being sucked out of the uterus. The hungry child can be fed. The aborted child, however, is dead. It's sad that you can't see this.

Cant see what?

Don't be so emotional and you'd make more sense. It seems as if you think someone here doesn't know what abortion means. If you thought that, I apologize for you not understanding

Thanks for another completely unrelated post to strengthen your point

 

[Zoom-boing]

Cant see what?

Don't be so emotional and you'd make more sense. It seems as if you think someone here doesn't know what abortion means. If you thought that, I apologize for you not understanding

Thanks for another completely unrelated post to strengthen your point

My point is as plain as the one on your head. I'd explain it to you but hey, I'm not the dumbass whisperer.

(cc will likely reply with what he perceives to be a witty retort, something along the lines of what he's already posted, in 3, 2, 1 ...)

 

[ClosedCaption]

Thanks for another completely unrelated post to strengthen your point

My point is as plain as the one on your head. I'd explain it to you but hey, I'm not the dumbass whisperer.

(cc will likely reply with what he perceives to be a witty retort, something along the lines of what he's already posted, in 3, 2, 1 ...)

Yeah yeah, I know, Another reason you cant explain is because you're not making sense....OOOOOORRRRrrrr you conveniently don't have the time. Keep typing tho...since you don't have the time

 

[martybegan]

Hungry isn't enough then you're talking about more suffering. Is this also in an "international sense" or talking about America? Going hungry for weeks and months isn't common in America.

Of course you can shape the debate in any way to dismiss it. For example: Americans aren't fat on an "multi-species" scale. Sea Loins are fatter.
The guy living in a box isn't poor on a "historic scale"...3 pennies was a lot of money in the 1800's.

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

You keep changing the argument. We are talking about Americans based on American standards aren't we?

If not we can start comparing Americans to other countries, species etc in order to further frame the argument like comparing fat people to sea lions. On Averages Americans are healthy compared to Sea Lions the same way they aren't hungry on an international scale.

Sorry, are you the only one allowed to frame the debate the way YOU want it?

You started with the typical leftist drivel that republicans care about fetuses, not hungry children, igoring the fact that what republicans dont like is federal money being used for this stuff, as opposed to state money or private money. One point I made is that in this country we have fat people as poor people, something not seen in the rest of the world.

You then locked onto that instead of supporting your original point, because we all know your original point is bullshit, and you know it.

Framed enough for you now?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

You keep changing the argument. We are talking about Americans based on American standards aren't we?

If not we can start comparing Americans to other countries, species etc in order to further frame the argument like comparing fat people to sea lions. On Averages Americans are healthy compared to Sea Lions the same way they aren't hungry on an international scale.

Sorry, are you the only one allowed to frame the debate the way YOU want it?

You started with the typical leftist drivel that republicans care about fetuses, not hungry children, igoring the fact that what republicans dont like is federal money being used for this stuff, as opposed to state money or private money. One point I made is that in this country we have fat people as poor people, something not seen in the rest of the world.

You then locked onto that instead of supporting your original point, because we all know your original point is bullshit, and you know it.

Framed enough for you now?

Are you confused? I say you don't care about hungry children and you say I'm ignoring the fact that you don't like the programs. No, I KNOW you don't like the programs that feed hungry children. That's what I said. By not liking the program you DONT CARE ABOUT HUNGRY children.

I give a shit WHY you don't care about them. I made the statement and you confirmed my statement as being true. You just want to tell my WHY its true

 

[martybegan]

You keep changing the argument. We are talking about Americans based on American standards aren't we?

If not we can start comparing Americans to other countries, species etc in order to further frame the argument like comparing fat people to sea lions. On Averages Americans are healthy compared to Sea Lions the same way they aren't hungry on an international scale.

Sorry, are you the only one allowed to frame the debate the way YOU want it?

You started with the typical leftist drivel that republicans care about fetuses, not hungry children, igoring the fact that what republicans dont like is federal money being used for this stuff, as opposed to state money or private money. One point I made is that in this country we have fat people as poor people, something not seen in the rest of the world.

You then locked onto that instead of supporting your original point, because we all know your original point is bullshit, and you know it.

Framed enough for you now?

Are you confused? I say you don't care about hungry children and you say I'm ignoring the fact that you don't like the programs. No, I KNOW you don't like the programs that feed hungry children. That's what I said. By not liking the program you DONT CARE ABOUT HUNGRY children.

I give a shit WHY you don't care about them. I made the statement and you confirmed my statement as being true. You just want to tell my WHY its true

Not wanting the federal government to be involved in charity does not equal not caring about hungry children, its caring about how our consitutional government works. Your relating the two does not make it true, no matter how much you want to preserve your talking point.

Also, using other people's money via the government to help others is not YOU helping others, despite what you think.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Thanks for another completely unrelated post to strengthen your point

My point is as plain as the one on your head. I'd explain it to you but hey, I'm not the dumbass whisperer.

(cc will likely reply with what he perceives to be a witty retort, something along the lines of what he's already posted, in 3, 2, 1 ...)

Yeah yeah, I know, Another reason you cant explain is because you're not making sense....OOOOOORRRRrrrr you conveniently don't have the time. Keep typing tho...since you don't have the time

So predictable.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You started with the typical leftist drivel that republicans care about fetuses, not hungry children, igoring the fact that what republicans dont like is federal money being used for this stuff, as opposed to state money or private money. One point I made is that in this country we have fat people as poor people, something not seen in the rest of the world.

You then locked onto that instead of supporting your original point, because we all know your original point is bullshit, and you know it.

Framed enough for you now?

Are you confused? I say you don't care about hungry children and you say I'm ignoring the fact that you don't like the programs. No, I KNOW you don't like the programs that feed hungry children. That's what I said. By not liking the program you DONT CARE ABOUT HUNGRY children.

I give a shit WHY you don't care about them. I made the statement and you confirmed my statement as being true. You just want to tell my WHY its true

Not wanting the federal government to be involved in charity does not equal not caring about hungry children, its caring about how our consitutional government works. Your relating the two does not make it true, no matter how much you want to preserve your talking point.

Also, using other people's money via the government to help others is not YOU helping others, despite what you think.

Regardless, this view results in people going hungry. You know that you are just trying to make the belief and the result seem like they are unrelated

 

[ClosedCaption]

My point is as plain as the one on your head. I'd explain it to you but hey, I'm not the dumbass whisperer.

(cc will likely reply with what he perceives to be a witty retort, something along the lines of what he's already posted, in 3, 2, 1 ...)

Yeah yeah, I know, Another reason you cant explain is because you're not making sense....OOOOOORRRRrrrr you conveniently don't have the time. Keep typing tho...since you don't have the time

So predictable.

Still no time then huh?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Yeah yeah, I know, Another reason you cant explain is because you're not making sense....OOOOOORRRRrrrr you conveniently don't have the time. Keep typing tho...since you don't have the time

So predictable.

Still no time then huh?

Funny, I didn't mention anything about not having time ... you did then projected it on to me.

What I said I wasn't the dumbass whisperer. It's ok, I understand why you ignored that.

 

[Plasmaball]

Hungry isn't enough then you're talking about more suffering. Is this also in an "international sense" or talking about America? Going hungry for weeks and months isn't common in America.

Of course you can shape the debate in any way to dismiss it. For example: Americans aren't fat on an "multi-species" scale. Sea Loins are fatter.
The guy living in a box isn't poor on a "historic scale"...3 pennies was a lot of money in the 1800's.

That is possibly some of the dumbest drivel you have come up with so far, and you are pretty dumb, so bravo for exceeding your previous stupidity.

Not to mention, WTF is s sea loin?

The stupid runs deep in that one.

its a seal dipshit. Go read a book an educate yourself for once.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This Turd Burgler didn't know what a dam sea lion is LOL

 

[martybegan]

Are you confused? I say you don't care about hungry children and you say I'm ignoring the fact that you don't like the programs. No, I KNOW you don't like the programs that feed hungry children. That's what I said. By not liking the program you DONT CARE ABOUT HUNGRY children.

I give a shit WHY you don't care about them. I made the statement and you confirmed my statement as being true. You just want to tell my WHY its true

Not wanting the federal government to be involved in charity does not equal not caring about hungry children, its caring about how our consitutional government works. Your relating the two does not make it true, no matter how much you want to preserve your talking point.

Also, using other people's money via the government to help others is not YOU helping others, despite what you think.

Regardless, this view results in people going hungry. You know that you are just trying to make the belief and the result seem like they are unrelated

No it doesnt. Other organizations can take up the slack, ones that actually were designed to do it under the consitution.

Or you can stop being a hypocrite and go out and ladle some soup at a soup kitchen instead of forcing the rest of us to fund your charities.