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.
We'll have to take you word, as you are trying to speak for 'almost all' pro-lifersAlmost all Anti-abortionists want abortion to be against the law but they don't want the woman to be considered a lawbreaker.
WTF is right.
, that they want (all?) abortions to be against the law (which is certainly NOT true), but what else do you call someone who breaks the law if NOT a 'law-breaker'?
Says who? The only "reporters" that I've seen President Dip Stick deal with "smoothly" are the fawning sycophants that worship him, on the bright side Obama hasn't nuked the Chinese, the Russians or the Middle East and I'm pretty sure he won't in the time he has left in office, which is more than I can say about Trump.But on the other hand obama can deal with reporters smoothly but can't handle ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.Yep, Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly and Chris Matthews yet some people believe he's ready to deal with ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.........Just imagine what Putin could "trick" him into - if he can't even handle a direct question from Chris Matthews.
Adolf Trump can't handle pressure. He's also a choker.
Basically.Bottomline is, Trump was right.
IF abortion is wrong, then the wrongdoer should be punished.
The pregnant woman who has the abortion is the wrongdoer.
bottom line is it was a terrible response to a hypothetical question.
a good answer would have rejected the premise with a thorough explanation.
it's called enlightened leadership...
Wrong. You can't be on both sides of an issue at the same time. Either abortion is wrong, and punishable, or it isn't.
FLASHBACK: Obama tries to force hospitals run by religious institutions to hand out contraceptives and perform abortions as part of Obamacare. In order to take the focus off of the fact that attempting to do so was a violation of the Constitution he and his clown posse started the faux argument that the GOP wanted to prevent all women from having access to contraceptives, which was an incredibly stupid claim to make but one which ignorant/gullible/partisan liberals ate up.Now that Trump has made yet another strike against women in his ongoing marginalization of them, I am sure that we will have to endure a couple of days of condescending comments, such as, "I love women!. They are beautiful!"
Where did he say this?So the 'good' answer to the hypothetical question of whether people who break the law should be punished or not is 'No'?bottom line is it was a terrible response to a hypothetical question.
...
[emoji14]
Evidently, according to Obama and Liberals, only if the law is one they don't agree with.
Mike Huckabee, one of the most anti-abortion types you can find, said this morning that no way should women ever be punished for having an abortion.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, not nuking a country is a fairly low bar for accomplishments. Most reporters are fawning fans and he does get testy when they aren't. But I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't want to nuke anyone, nor could he on his own.Says who? The only "reporters" that I've seen President Dip Stick deal with "smoothly" are the fawning sycophants that worship him, on the bright side Obama hasn't nuked the Chinese, the Russians or the Middle East and I'm pretty sure he won't in the time he has left in office, which is more than I can say about Trump.But on the other hand obama can deal with reporters smoothly but can't handle ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.Yep, Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly and Chris Matthews yet some people believe he's ready to deal with ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.........Just imagine what Putin could "trick" him into - if he can't even handle a direct question from Chris Matthews.
Adolf Trump can't handle pressure. He's also a choker.
a good answer would have straightened out the questioner and dismissed the premise.
hillary would have knocked that question right out of the park.
enlightened leadership, GOP should get some.
of course NYcarbineer isn't interested in that ^ cuz nasty divisiveness suits his anti GOP agenda.
I understand that Huckabee stated the same today. What's your response to him?FLASHBACK: Obama tries to force hospitals run by religious institutions to hand out contraceptives and perform abortions as part of Obamacare. In order to take the focus off of the fact that attempting to do so was a violation of the Constitution he and his clown posse started the faux argument that the GOP wanted to prevent all women from having access to contraceptives, which was an incredibly stupid claim to make but one which ignorant/gullible/partisan liberals ate up.Now that Trump has made yet another strike against women in his ongoing marginalization of them, I am sure that we will have to endure a couple of days of condescending comments, such as, "I love women!. They are beautiful!"
Now you have Trump answering the question of whether he believes someone breaking the law should be punished for doing so. By answering 'yes' he thinks someone who breaks the law should be punished' Liberals seek to demonize Trump for his answer because it involves a hypothetical law that they do not like because it is about abortion.
Some things never change.
So enforcing existing law and holding those who break the law, even hypothetically enforcing a hypothetical law and hypothetically punishing the hypothetical law-breaker, is somehow 'wanting to be RADICAL without consequences'?These rightwing bastards want to be radical without the consequences.
Absolutely NOT, especially since she supposedly had one child for political convenience and use abortions to ensure no more rug rats spoiled her future political plans.a good answer would have straightened out the questioner and dismissed the premise.
hillary would have knocked that question right out of the park.
enlightened leadership, GOP should get some.
of course NYcarbineer isn't interested in that ^ cuz nasty divisiveness suits his anti GOP agenda.
Hillary isn't anti-abortion.
Stated WHAT specifically?I understand that Huckabee stated the same today. What's your response to him?
Well yeah.. but that's about the only bar President Blunder Boy can reach (well that and the fact that he's managed not to swallow his own tongue in 7 years).Well, not nuking a country is a fairly low bar for accomplishments.Says who? The only "reporters" that I've seen President Dip Stick deal with "smoothly" are the fawning sycophants that worship him, on the bright side Obama hasn't nuked the Chinese, the Russians or the Middle East and I'm pretty sure he won't in the time he has left in office, which is more than I can say about Trump.But on the other hand obama can deal with reporters smoothly but can't handle ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.Yep, Trump can't handle Megyn Kelly and Chris Matthews yet some people believe he's ready to deal with ISIS, the Chinese and the Russians.........Just imagine what Putin could "trick" him into - if he can't even handle a direct question from Chris Matthews.
Adolf Trump can't handle pressure. He's also a choker.
YepMost reporters are fawning fans and he does get testy when they aren't.
Just wait until he doesn't get his way or some diplomat says something that pisses him off, after all he goes ape shit whenever anybody asks him a difficult question or even vaguely insults him, do you really want this joker anywhere near the nuclear football?But I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't want to nuke anyone, nor could he on his own.
FLASHBACK: Obama tries to force hospitals run by religious institutions to hand out contraceptives and perform abortions as part of Obamacare. In order to take the focus off of the fact that attempting to do so was a violation of the Constitution he and his clown posse started the faux argument that the GOP wanted to prevent all women from having access to contraceptives, which was an incredibly stupid claim to make but one which ignorant/gullible/partisan liberals ate up.Now that Trump has made yet another strike against women in his ongoing marginalization of them, I am sure that we will have to endure a couple of days of condescending comments, such as, "I love women!. They are beautiful!"
Now you have Trump answering the question of whether he believes someone breaking the law should be punished for doing so. By answering 'yes' he thinks someone who breaks the law should be punished' Liberals seek to demonize Trump for his answer because it involves a hypothetical law that they do not like because it is about abortion.
Some things never change.
FLASHBACK: Obama tries to force hospitals run by religious institutions to hand out contraceptives and perform abortions as part of Obamacare. In order to take the focus off of the fact that attempting to do so was a violation of the Constitution he and his clown posse started the faux argument that the GOP wanted to prevent all women from having access to contraceptives, which was an incredibly stupid claim to make but one which ignorant/gullible/partisan liberals ate up.Now that Trump has made yet another strike against women in his ongoing marginalization of them, I am sure that we will have to endure a couple of days of condescending comments, such as, "I love women!. They are beautiful!"
Now you have Trump answering the question of whether he believes someone breaking the law should be punished for doing so. By answering 'yes' he thinks someone who breaks the law should be punished' Liberals seek to demonize Trump for his answer because it involves a hypothetical law that they do not like because it is about abortion.
Some things never change.
Where did he say this?So the 'good' answer to the hypothetical question of whether people who break the law should be punished or not is 'No'?bottom line is it was a terrible response to a hypothetical question.
...
[emoji14]
Evidently, according to Obama and Liberals, only if the law is one they don't agree with.
Mike Huckabee, one of the most anti-abortion types you can find, said this morning that no way should women ever be punished for having an abortion.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
a good answer would have straightened out the questioner and dismissed the premise.
hillaryany decent leader would have knocked that question right out of the park.
enlightened leadership, GOP should get some.
of course NYcarbineer isn't interested in that ^ cuz nasty divisiveness suits his anti GOP agenda.
Hillary isn't anti-abortion.
Absolutely NOT, especially since she supposedly had one child for political convenience and use abortions to ensure no more rug rats spoiled her future political plans.a good answer would have straightened out the questioner and dismissed the premise.
hillary would have knocked that question right out of the park.
enlightened leadership, GOP should get some.
of course NYcarbineer isn't interested in that ^ cuz nasty divisiveness suits his anti GOP agenda.
Hillary isn't anti-abortion.
So you REALLY want to eliminate the woman from the equation, claim that if a woman breaks the law only her 'accomplice' - the doctor - should be held accountable? And I am the dumbass?!...and yet, before Roe vs. Wade, the person doing the abortion was guilty of breaking the law, not that pregnant woman, which puts Trump into a category of a complete dumbass.
a good answer would have straightened out the questioner and dismissed the premise.
hillaryany decent leader would have knocked that question right out of the park.
enlightened leadership, GOP should get some.
of course NYcarbineer isn't interested in that ^ cuz nasty divisiveness suits his anti GOP agenda.
Hillary isn't anti-abortion.
no kidding...
your deliberate density might be lost on the emo pro-lifers but i get your disingenuous point.
i bet kasich would have been wise enough to give a decent answer.
