Who is responsible for YOU?

[Agnapostate]

Another day, another ridiculous abuse of the term "socialist" by another idiot.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no connection, idiot. That's my point. The fools who insist that eliminating abortion is going to cause this huge increase in child abuse and poverty are ignoring the fact that child abuse and poverty have increased along with abortion rates.

Fucking moron. Try to focus.

No, see you have it backwards. There is no connection between legal abortions and welfare....

But there would be a connection between making abortion illegal and welfare increases.

Its obvious. Why isn't it to you? Because you want to ban abortion.

Just like global warming is obvious to most of us but not you.

Just like we knew Bush lied about WMD's but it took you years to figure that one out.

Or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

All these things you believed because you are a sheep.

The sheep is you, friend. You are making connections that don't exist. Crime and welfare were much, much lower when abortion was illegal. As soon as it became legal, welfare rolls increased and so did crime.

You do the fucking math. And for you to call anyone a sheep is a laugh. Have you ever posted any real information other than the outright lies you sweep up from the floors of socialist propaganda sites?

Whatever Allie. I don't even give a rats ass about anyone else getting an abortion.

I am responsible for me and you are responsible for you. If you overturn Roe vs. Wade, then you are a hypocrite. Because you want the government to stay out of our business, right?

Well then why don't you teach your kid to stop fucking and you won't have to worry about abortions.

Do you know how many people suffer everyday? What a bitch you are to care about a seed that doesn't feel a fucking thing and ignore the people who suffer.

I would have for you to be my social worker. Arrogant and ignorant is a dangerous combination.

 

[Tigerlils13]

This goes back to the simple rule of economics – people do what they do to maximize their own utility.
What I am saying is that the website failed to completely convince me.

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

My words were clear, and don’t require correction to suit your interpretation. The Golden Rule is a very simple concept that is easily understood by most people, whether religious or not, and I clearly explained why I among them think it is a valuable philosophy.....And wanting to live by the Golden Rule, and forseeing it's usefulness, does not mean they necessarily are "preachy" about it. Most Christians I know simply try to do the right thing most of the time without making a fuss about it.
Sorry…if you can’t see the point I was making without bastardizing it to suit your purpose, I can’t see any real use in going further. To want to treat others as you would like to be treated is a far cry from bible beating, in my book.

Trust me... I'm terribly confused on this point.

Being confused in the face of a simple truth is a rhetorical device. Just try taking that simple phrase in the "Golden Rule" without embellishing it, and you won't be confused.

Also, it's in my own experience, that the poor, which includes such notoriously Democratic voters as African Americans and Hispanics, vote liberal... if they vote at all. That does seem to be a problem isn't it?

I was not talking about the masses of poor, I was simply explaining why this specific group, and many people like them who know themselves to not be wealthy, and maybe they more than the wealthy, find utility in charitable giving. And they find their own value in deciding for themselves to do that, rather than having that option usurped by their goverment.

And I see no problem that those you mention vote Liberal. They are welcome to do that. But the opposite, that ordinary poor folks don't necessarily vote liberal; that's something the Liberal mind can't understand: "why would they, or anyone vote against what appears to be 'their own self interests'?". They do, and it's not because they are sheep. It's because they are convinced of their own potential.

1) You're the one who mentioned that the Golden Rule was the one that church goers especially took to heart. I was just telling you exactly what it was that church goers took to heart. And, just so you know, it's not my interpretation. It's Mark's. Look it up- 12:30-31. Any church goer would know that. Duh.

2)You use obscene language to make a point. How... childish. Even my 16 year old brother doesn't stoop that low.

3) Your website stated that the working poor tended to vote conservative and that the working poor also tended to be the most charitable. You, however, have contradicted that website and have, as such, essentially agreed with me. Bravo.

4) According to your website and your contradictory self, these working poor arn't lazy, but are instead hard working people who are "convinced of their own potential." Are you Conservative types ever going to give me a straight answer for once? Are people poor because they're lazy or not?!?!? One second you say yes and the next no. You say that these people who are so lazy don't deserve basic human necessities such as healthcare. You say they don't deserve to send they're children to college. You condemn and condemn and condemn and then you turn around and (do correct me if I'm wrong) say that if a poor person votes Republican it obviously means that that person is a harder worker than a poor person who votes liberal. If a poor person votes liberal then it means that they expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound to a girl who's grown up on both sides of the traintracks and knows what it's like to be poor and knows what it's like to actually be able to afford nice clothes and heat and healthy food? My parents have been poor. They worked hard. And now I can go to college. I can buy clothes at such ridiculously priced places as American Eagle. I don't have to worry about the electricity going out anymore. And guess what? My parents are STILL voting liberal.
Just because you work hard doesn't mean you're Conservative. It doesn't mean you're a liberal. It just means you know that value of hard work.
You've got to come up with a better undertone to your arguments because your's just arn't working.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, see you have it backwards. There is no connection between legal abortions and welfare....

But there would be a connection between making abortion illegal and welfare increases.

Its obvious. Why isn't it to you? Because you want to ban abortion.

Just like global warming is obvious to most of us but not you.

Just like we knew Bush lied about WMD's but it took you years to figure that one out.

Or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.

All these things you believed because you are a sheep.

The sheep is you, friend. You are making connections that don't exist. Crime and welfare were much, much lower when abortion was illegal. As soon as it became legal, welfare rolls increased and so did crime.

You do the fucking math. And for you to call anyone a sheep is a laugh. Have you ever posted any real information other than the outright lies you sweep up from the floors of socialist propaganda sites?

Whatever Allie. I don't even give a rats ass about anyone else getting an abortion.

I am responsible for me and you are responsible for you. If you overturn Roe vs. Wade, then you are a hypocrite. Because you want the government to stay out of our business, right?

Well then why don't you teach your kid to stop fucking and you won't have to worry about abortions.

Do you know how many people suffer everyday? What a bitch you are to care about a seed that doesn't feel a fucking thing and ignore the people who suffer.

I would have for you to be my social worker. Arrogant and ignorant is a dangerous combination.

Roe vs. Wade was a prime example of the SUPREME COURT overruling the will of the people and creating a law which changed the definition of murder...when the people were adamantly against it.

And you are showing your woeful ignorance when you talk that way about babies. And you think I lack compassion. I'm against taking life. You're for it. I'm for the defense of children, you're for their slaughter. Let's talk about arrogance and ignorance.

Do you work with pregnant welfare mothers? I do. Have you worked in residential treatment facilities where there are women with their drug addicted babies? I have. AND NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD GET AN ABORTION even when they first found out they were pregnant and were still using.

Have you worked in Juvie where little girls who have been raped and sold and god knows what from infancy upwards, have had their abortions...and nobody EVER FUCKING REPORTED the abuse? I have.

So shut your ignorant trap. You are the problem, you and your pet baby, abortion, are the reason we have an issue with the early sexualization of children, you are the reason children in our society are considered disposable, you are the reason they are considered of less importance than their parents, you are the reason people think it's just fine to put a helpless child's needs way down on the totem pole. Because any society which encourages young people to have sex and then to abort their children encourages all those behaviors.

And I realize your pathetic whining comes from frustration at not being able to prove your lie about abortion reducing child abuse and death. Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you're a liar and leave the lie behind? Just admit you want those babies dead because there are just too darned many people who aren't like you in the world. Abortion is a great way to get rid of opposition.

Get rid of freedom of speech, get rid of religion, get rid of arms..and get rid of the kids.

It's the way all great communist governments and despotic rulers do it.

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course you're not against taking lives. You were happy that the chimpanzee was shot, and chimpanzees are a form of "life" with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings than a human fetus or infant. Since the greater self-awareness of humans is considered to be the most relevant difference between humans and other animals, why would that not be a pertinent issue?

 

[American Horse]

I don't think you are wrong on that but the "utility" that I see is a simple one. People give to charity because they understand being vulnerable, and hope that should they become vulnerable, there will will be charity for them. the same applies to compassion, forgiveness, generous offers of help, a welcoming smile.

But regardless of what you make of the two "communities" the people most likely to give at Sioux Falls made somewhat less than $35,000, which fits my thought above, and even though they are not at all "rich" they are more likely to be conservative than liberals. They don't resent people with wealth, because to some degree they hold out a hope that at some point in their lives they will be among those who are wealthy.

The operative rule that applies here, is one of the first those who attend church take to heart: The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", while many follow the crude mantra "Do unto others before they can do it to you". Which of those two communities would you think had the greater number of "good Samaritans"? Being a good Samaritan requires one to be less stingy with their time, be more generous, and to willingly attend to the needs of others.

My words were clear, and don’t require correction to suit your interpretation. The Golden Rule is a very simple concept that is easily understood by most people, whether religious or not, and I clearly explained why I among them think it is a valuable philosophy.....And wanting to live by the Golden Rule, and forseeing it's usefulness, does not mean they necessarily are "preachy" about it. Most Christians I know simply try to do the right thing most of the time without making a fuss about it.
Sorry…if you can’t see the point I was making without bastardizing it to suit your purpose, I can’t see any real use in going further. To want to treat others as you would like to be treated is a far cry from bible beating, in my book.

Being confused in the face of a simple truth is a rhetorical device. Just try taking that simple phrase in the "Golden Rule" without embellishing it, and you won't be confused.

Also, it's in my own experience, that the poor, which includes such notoriously Democratic voters as African Americans and Hispanics, vote liberal... if they vote at all. That does seem to be a problem isn't it?

I was not talking about the masses of poor, I was simply explaining why this specific group, and many people like them who know themselves to not be wealthy, and maybe they more than the wealthy, find utility in charitable giving. And they find their own value in deciding for themselves to do that, rather than having that option usurped by their goverment.

And I see no problem that those you mention vote Liberal. They are welcome to do that. But the opposite, that ordinary poor folks don't necessarily vote liberal; that's something the Liberal mind can't understand: "why would they, or anyone vote against what appears to be 'their own self interests'?". They do, and it's not because they are sheep. It's because they are convinced of their own potential.

1) You're the one who mentioned that the Golden Rule was the one that church goers especially took to heart. I was just telling you exactly what it was that church goers took to heart. And, just so you know, it's not my interpretation. It's Mark's. Look it up- 12:30-31. Any church goer would know that. Duh.

2)You use obscene language to make a point. How... childish. Even my 16 year old brother doesn't stoop that low.

3) Your website stated that the working poor tended to vote conservative and that the working poor also tended to be the most charitable. You, however, have contradicted that website and have, as such, essentially agreed with me. Bravo.

4) According to your website and your contradictory self, these working poor arn't lazy, but are instead hard working people who are "convinced of their own potential." Are you Conservative types ever going to give me a straight answer for once? Are people poor because they're lazy or not?!?!? One second you say yes and the next no. You say that these people who are so lazy don't deserve basic human necessities such as healthcare. You say they don't deserve to send they're children to college. You condemn and condemn and condemn and then you turn around and (do correct me if I'm wrong) say that if a poor person votes Republican it obviously means that that person is a harder worker than a poor person who votes liberal. If a poor person votes liberal then it means that they expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound to a girl who's grown up on both sides of the traintracks and knows what it's like to be poor and knows what it's like to actually be able to afford nice clothes and heat and healthy food? My parents have been poor. They worked hard. And now I can go to college. I can buy clothes at such ridiculously priced places as American Eagle. I don't have to worry about the electricity going out anymore. And guess what? My parents are STILL voting liberal.
Just because you work hard doesn't mean you're Conservative. It doesn't mean you're a liberal. It just means you know that value of hard work.
You've got to come up with a better undertone to your arguments because your's just arn't working.

I'll just let my post stand next to yours as they relate respectively to their undertone. I've bolded the only word in my post which could conceivably be described as obscene language. I don't think we are both operating with the same set of definitions and probably further discussion is a waste of time and energy for both of us. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[Peejay]

Reading through here there is one thing that jumps out: Crime rates. Anyonme claiming a rise in crime is uninformed or making a disingenuous argument. Violent crime rates have been falling for 15 years. The correlation between abortion and crime rates is generally accepted among unbiased observers. The rates began to fall sharply around 1993 / 94, around 18 to 20 years after Roe v Wade. That's the age of the most common violent offenders. They were never born.

 

[AllieBaba]

Of course you're not against taking lives. You were happy that the chimpanzee was shot, and chimpanzees are a form of "life" with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings than a human fetus or infant. Since the greater self-awareness of humans is considered to be the most relevant difference between humans and other animals, why would that not be a pertinent issue?

You are a sad and twisted little monster.

 

[AllieBaba]

I find it telling that while Agna the Child Molester claims his desire to make sex with 13 year olds legal for 40 year olds and allowing children under the age of 14 to work is a sign of his desire to "liberate" children....yet at the same time he equates them with chimpanzees, and states (repeatedly) he thinks chimps are the more valuable life form.

Does this give anyone else the creeps?

 

[Agnapostate]

You are a sad and twisted little monster.

This is the nature of your idiocy, Christfag. You lack the intellectual capacities to win any debate, whether it's regarding textual criticism of the New Testament, the issue of parental notification for abortion, or the relative value of human infant lives as compared to the lives of adult chimpanzees. You lack an intelligent response. Perhaps you shouldn't respond at all.

 

[AllieBaba]

I mean..more than usual. Because I think we're all agreed Agna is one creepy weirdo....

 

[Agnapostate]

I find it telling that while Agna the Child Molester claims his desire to make sex with 13 year olds legal for 40 year olds and allowing children under the age of 14 to work is a sign of his desire to "liberate" children....yet at the same time he equates them with chimpanzees, and states (repeatedly) he thinks chimps are the more valuable life form.

Does this give anyone else the creeps?

Fetuses are not "children" in any functional manner, AllieBabble. We have already discussed the greater levels of self-awareness of a chimpanzee than a human fetus; you simply lack a sufficient reply.

 

[Agnapostate]

I mean..more than usual. Because I think we're all agreed Agna is one creepy weirdo....

We've all agreed that you're a babbling clown that lacks the capacity to engage in any legitimate political debate, which is why you always lose.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are a sad and twisted little monster.

This is the nature of your idiocy, Christfag. You lack the intellectual capacities to win any debate, whether it's regarding textual criticism of the New Testament, the issue of parental notification for abortion, or the relative value of human infant lives as compared to the lives of adult chimpanzees. You lack an intelligent response. Perhaps you shouldn't respond at all.

There is no comparison of the life of an animal, any animal, and a human.

Period.

Tell me, are you a Coronado acolyte, as well? Not only do you believe in "liberating" children (who have less relative value than chimps) to explore sexuality with old men....but do you also believe in liberating animals to enjoy the same sexual freedom with men such as yourself???

Somehow, I suspect you are.

 

[Agnapostate]

There is no comparison of the life of an animal, any animal, and a human.

Period.

That is not a sufficient response. You have stated a conclusion; you have not offered reasoning or argument to support it.

Tell me, are you a Coronado acolyte, as well? Not only do you believe in "liberating" children (who have less relative value than chimps) to explore sexuality with old men....but do you also believe in liberating animals to enjoy the same sexual freedom with men such as yourself???

Somehow, I suspect you are.

Idiotic rambling from an idiotic individual. Methinks someone's imbibed too much of the "blood of Christ."

 

[AllieBaba]

I see. So you are a Coronado acolyte. I knew it.

Hey Sky Dancer, can Agna be "blamed" for the fact that he molests little girls and chimps? Or is this a case of he should be prosecuted, but we should pity and hold him blameless, because undoubtedly, somewhere in his past, he was abused by a pre-pubescent girl and a sex-starved monkey?

 

[Agnapostate]

I see. So you are a Coronado acolyte. I knew it.

Hey Sky Dancer, can Agna be "blamed" for the fact that he molests little girls and chimps? Or is this a case of he should be prosecuted, but we should pity and hold him blameless, because undoubtedly, somewhere in his past, he was abused by a pre-pubescent girl and a sex-starved monkey?

Are you this flagrantly stupid in real life?

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey, this is your life, not mine. I don't propose the liberation of children so they can have sexual relations with old men, then go on to say the relative value of a chimp is greater than that of a child, you fucking moron.

 

[Agnapostate]

Hey, this is your life, not mine. I don't propose the liberation of children so they can have sexual relations with old men, then go on to say the relative value of a chimp is greater than that of a child, you fucking moron.

You're a curious specimen. Even in my observations of the brain-damaged Pat Robertson, I've never seen a Christfag so simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.

 

[Meister]

There is no comparison of the life of an animal, any animal, and a human.

Period.

That is not a sufficient response. You have stated a conclusion; you have not offered reasoning or argument to support it.

What a goofball. Your a blooming idiot...that should support it.