Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement. You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.TRANSLATION: "we understand your argument in much the same way we understand their argument"..
Triggered.... LOL" Anthropocentric Egoism Of Punk Bitch Arguments From Wanna Be Goons "
* Damned Dirty Ape Grunts *
Let the academic community know when the ilk of you two ewes is ready to stop queering off on each other and are ready to nut up .
Neither of you two ewes is capable of justifying absolution for implementing asceticism of the sacrosanct , that is based in arrogant dogmatic conjectures of a gawd separate of nature - literally separate from itself , from whence the literal meaning of an afterlife , as perpetuity of introspection , clearly proven from obvious evidence as the nature of nature , is ignored for hyperbole of a superlative metaphor for transmutation of soles .
As long as the abortion anti-choice trope continues not to practice its antinomian creed , its auspices will be confronted with the unadulterated version for the meaning of an afterlife .
* Unable To Challenge And Sew Is Ignored As Illusion *
Harm or death delivering a child eh ? So what then, just avoid the harm or death, and otherwise feel free to toss that baby right up to the slim time before it is birthed ?????You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement. You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.
that's right, I am not... I am posting the definition of a quote you posted that makes and proves my case...are you upset because I didn't thank you?You are not making an argument here.
what was it? would you mind quoting and pasting that announcement?You have made an announcement.
Your problem just may be a lack of prunes which is creating the confusion in your mind.You expect the government of the land of the free to limit freedom when women get pregnant, forcing them to assume the risk of harm or death delivering a new child to the world.
Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, or ”would you mind quoting and pasting that announcement?
That's a response not an announcement or an argument [why would that^ be an argument?]...[shudda put a "?" to head off the nonsense]
...and your response was:TRANSLATION: "we understand your argument in much the same way we understand their argument"...[Frank takes his bows]
As you can plainly see the Alito quote clearly makes my point of understanding your chosen beliefs in the same manner of understanding as the pro-life beliefs.You are not making an argument here. You have made an announcement.
You chose your [^ that] quote wisely [as it applies to me] and from someone you obviously see as very wise.“For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” Sam Alito..
23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.That's a response not an announcement
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... LOL... All your bull crap, and you still support a woman ending her pregnancy without good reason, and then what you want is state or fed approval and/or sponsorship through that approval in order to keep her actions legitimized without question (her body, her choice). Well we see where that has led this nation over time, and that isn't just beholding to the abortion issue only. A miriad of state or federally supported issue's were, and still are wrong headed. I mean all one has to do is look at the results of it all, and pay attention to the stats or the bad fall out.23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.
The “pro-choice” in your clownish vernacular is not the rational common usage of the term pertinent to this discussion.
It is the fact that you announced it, that gave me the realization that I am dealing with a clown, not someone who argues in support for a woman having the “choice” to have a medical procedure that will prevent physical and financial harm to her body including the finality harm of death
Your response was in the affirmative as follows:
Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, … “Apr 28, 2023 ¥ Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”
If you do not support the imposition of harm {by state government’s that ban the medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy) to every American citizen when they get pregnant but did not intend to say that, You are free, still, to reply In the negative and explain that you were just clowning around in {#8,558 to: 08,556} .
As of this moment, I accept your announcement that “pro-choice”
means in your usage of words that you are pro-harming women through force of law when they get pregnant. Let me know If you are not.
The etymology is clear - per means countable by census and son means male , in fact , as a person may become a citizen , as per us 14th amendment , women are not formal citizens of the us republic and see us 19th amendment for proof .The new Supreme Court Justice and the other liberal Justices are unable to define what a woman is, let alone what "person" means.
The liberal versus conservative paradigm is intellectual buffoonery , it is it not based in valid political science or civics principles or accurate terminology .The codes are not part of the Constitution but liberal interpretations of words used in the Constitution. Thus, the meaning of what a person is can be debated and changed from time to time. Originally, an unborn baby is human and a person. Thus, the term "unborn" baby or person. And, therefore protected by the Constitution with rights. Nowhere in the constitution does it say "Live" person. It says "individual" or "person." To the sane and loving person, that includes the unborn person or individual.
It's ironic also that you post references suggesting that if the unborn has anomalies that the "Mother" can choose to end or kill her baby. That she has the right over the baby. Yet today, the States are denying parental rights to decide for a child whether or not to hack off protruding parts of their body in the name of gender affirming care or transgender crapola. So, what do you believe in? Mother's rights or not?
www.usmessageboard.com
" Political Science For The Brain Washed "
* People Living In A Fog *
Some idiot corrupts political science and basic terminology , by promoting that " liberal " is not restricted to negative liberty but that it also includes positive liberty as well , and the bandwagon of fools willfully adopts the orwellian double speak and vehemently defends that others surrender to it .
Classical Liberal - Conservapedia
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism) is a term used to describe the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill as well as its revival in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, among others. This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is sometimes called "new liberalism" or "neo-liberalism"
This political philosophy supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, and views the state as an entity which exists to protect those inherent rights. This can be ensured by a constitution or other such framework which protects individual autonomy and property from other individuals and governmental power (including economic power). The normative core of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire governance, a natural order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges which satisfies human goals and desires.
The qualification "classical" has been applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, because modern American liberalism is closer identified with social democracy.
In the United States, the term "liberal" has changed meaning since the 1930s following policies enacted by Democratic leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt. Since that time Classical Liberalism is more in line with conservative or libertarian politics and philosophy. In other parts of the world, particularly continental Europe and Japan, this view is still referred to as liberalism.
A classical liberal is someone who is liberal in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom over the divine right of the state.
Will you be prepared to explain disparities between an anthropocentric altruism for perpetuity of hue mammon introspection , as a will by a personified gawd , and a realism of limitations as included in the nature of nature , as evident as a success criteria of nature for survival of introspection without a requirement that the introspection of all persist , when deciding public policy for abortion ?Triggered.... LOL
It's great causing you wanna be so called edumacated enlightened knucklehead's to lose your shite.... ROTFLMBO
Best ease up on your triggered bull shite though (not good for your blood pressure), otherwise just because you are losing a debate ain't no reason for you to start going stupid......lol....
Some of your extra, extra happy good buddies around here might turn on you and your friend, well unless you're telling them that you're just doing everything for them eh ???.. ROTFLMBO
ROTFLMBO
Your posts all read like IKEA instructions.23APR30 0542 NFBW; It was a response that announced that you “admit’ that you ‘know” that the Dobbs ruling allows states to either “cause harm” or “do no harm” depending essentially on majority opinion in each state. The latter is the only constitutional decision a judge can make.
The “pro-choice” in your clownish vernacular is not the rational common usage of the term pertinent to this discussion.
It is the fact that you announced it, that gave me the realization that I am dealing with a clown, not someone who argues in support for a woman having the “choice” to have a medical procedure that will prevent physical and financial harm to her body including the finality harm of death
Your response was in the affirmative as follows:
Apr 28, 2023 NFBW #8,556 “Why do you support the imposition of harm on American citizens when they get pregnant, … “Apr 28, 2023 ¥ @Frankeneinstein ¥ #8,558 {to: 08,556} “cuz i'm pro-choice”
If you do not support the imposition of harm {by state government’s that ban the medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy) to every American citizen when they get pregnant but did not intend to say that, You are free, still, to reply In the negative and explain that you were just clowning around in {#8,558 to: 08,556} .
As of this moment, I accept your announcement that “pro-choice”
means in your usage of words that you are pro-harming women through force of law when they get pregnant. Let me know If you are not.
Oh so now you want to go all queer on the issue eh ? ROTFLMBO" Challenging Subjective Ideals With An Altruism "
* Metaphors Versus Literal Meanings Of Eternal Life *
Will you be prepared to explain disparities between an anthropocentric altruism for perpetuity of hue mammon introspection , as a will by a personified gawd , and a realism of limitations as included in the nature of nature , as evident as a success criteria of nature for survival of introspection without a requirement that the introspection of all persist , when deciding public policy for abortion ?
* Living With A Dream *
Wow , all that without reiterating or including a banter for your position , thus it seems that you were triggered for being called on and being associated with queering off , by not sticking to the issue .
* One Won Hour Two A Mend *
A queer is a rudiment for query , implying a divergence , overtly unusual interests . possibly perverse .
Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:Your posts all read like IKEA instructions.
What makes you think States are causing or will be causing harm to women over the issue ? The woman and the man are the one's causing the pregnancy, and not the State.Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:
23APR30 NFBW: Do you think state governments like Texas are respecting the constitutional rights of women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy which can kill the
Why are you in favor of causing all women who get pregnant harm by giving states the power to deny them statewide medical services for an abortion prior to 24 weeks if that is what they choose to do?
Where in the constitution do states get the right to cause harm to law-abiding citizens?
The way the question is worded I cannot say for sure that is even a thing, can you cite the specific wording in the constitution? verbatim if ya don't mind.23APR30 NFBW: Do you think state governments like Texas are respecting the constitutional rights of women in a condition of unwanted pregnancy which can kill the
cuz I'm pro-choice?Why are you in favor of causing all women who get pregnant harm by giving states the power to deny them statewide medical services for an abortion prior to 24 weeks if that is what they choose to do?
I have never seen it, and not just for citizens but for non citizens and babies in the womb also... it just isn't there... but then the constitution doesn't cover voluntarily induced harm of any kind...[time to rework that question again ]Where in the constitution do states get the right to cause harm to law-abiding citizens?
I already took care of that...I'm just watching you spin your wheels now.Be that as it may. However, sticking to the discussion:
There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .Oh so now you want to go all queer on the issue eh ? ROTFLMBO
Don't live your fantasies through this political message board boi. Either stay on topic/subject or go to hell with the rest of your good buddies around here. Take heed USMB, a poster is losing on the issue regardless of how many big words he tries to use, so he tries to change the subject to something that isn't on topic in the thread. Stay on topic or go find you a topic that strokes your ego along the lines of what you have in your heart.
You're doing yoga right now aren't you? tantric buddhist yoga from a tantra chair, right? I can tell, I'll give you your zen privacy.There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .
As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .
There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist
calm your monkeyThere is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .
As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .
There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist .
Focusing on the mantra will help you take your mind off the chaos and calm your monkey mind.
" Quite Easily Done "
* Exposing The Soft Underbelly Of Simpleton Trolls *
There is an altruism of hue mammon kind that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , yet by nature of nature , and therefore the will of personified gawd , the perpetuity of introspection by hue mammon kind throughout eternity does not require that the introspection of every instance by hue mammon kind exist in perpetuity throughout eternity .
As there is not a requirement the every instance of hue mammon kind ti exist in perpetuity throughout eternity to satisfy an altruism - that the introspection of hue mammon kind should exist in perpetuity throughout eternity , claims by the abortion anti-choice pundit that abortion should be illegal because all instances of hue mammon introspection are necessary for the perpetuity of hue mammon kind introspection throughout eternity is debased .
There is even less value to the claim by abortion anti-choice for its position where the onset of introspection is not sufficient to exist .
calm your monkey mind by mantraFocusing on the mantra will help you take your mind off the chaos and calm your monkey mind.
What makes you think States are causing or will be causing harm to women over the issue ? The woman and the man are the one's causing the pregnancy, and not the State.
