why do conservatives care about other peoples abortions?

[JoeB131]

So, in your simple mind, people being willing to be forced to constantly give other people things they should be providing themselves makes them a decent human being.

How about those constantly demanding things be decent humans and do for themselves for a change.

I have no problem with that. Every Able Bodied American should have a renumerative job, and there's plenty of work to be done.

What's fucked up is we have crumbling roads and inadequately staffed schools because even though the work needs to be done and there are people available to do it, we have 1% of the population hoarding 43% of the wealth

They certainly didn't do 43% of the physical labor.

 

[Conservative65]

So, in your simple mind, people being willing to be forced to constantly give other people things they should be providing themselves makes them a decent human being.

How about those constantly demanding things be decent humans and do for themselves for a change.

I have no problem with that. Every Able Bodied American should have a renumerative job, and there's plenty of work to be done.

What's fucked up is we have crumbling roads and inadequately staffed schools because even though the work needs to be done and there are people available to do it, we have 1% of the population hoarding 43% of the wealth

They certainly didn't do 43% of the physical labor.

Where I live, there was a vote in November of whether or not to add 1% to the local sales tax for roads. I, as part of 75%, voted no. I did so because every time I pay my vehicle property taxes, and I have four, there is a road maintenance fee on it that was added about 10 years ago. Let them use that money. That's what they said it was designed to do yet now they want more.

So physical labor is the only type labor you think is worth anything? I can understand why. You couldn't do anything involving mental ability with your Forrest Gump IQ.

 

[JoeB131]

Where I live, there was a vote in November of whether or not to add 1% to the local sales tax for roads. I, as part of 75%, voted no. I did so because every time I pay my vehicle property taxes, and I have four, there is a road maintenance fee on it that was added about 10 years ago. Let them use that money. That's what they said it was designed to do yet now they want more.

So what pig-ignorant part of the country do you live in where they can't do math. You'd probably complain when one of your cars hits a pothole and causes more damage than year of taxes would cost.

So physical labor is the only type labor you think is worth anything? I can understand why. You couldn't do anything involving mental ability with your Forrest Gump IQ.

Physical labor is the only way things get done. I mean, you can stick a bunch of one percenters on an island and ask them to produce stuff, but they'd probably come up with nothing without people to do the actual work.

And a Walton heir sitting around on her fat ass collecting billions while we have to subsidize their work force with food stamps is kind of a scam.

 

[Flash]

Physical labor is the only way things get done. I mean, you can stick a bunch of one percenters on an island and ask them to produce stuff, but they'd probably come up with nothing without people to do the actual work.

And a Walton heir sitting around on her fat ass collecting billions while we have to subsidize their work force with food stamps is kind of a scam.

If you ever had taken a course in basic economics you would know that labor is only one input into production. That is taught like the first couple of classes in Econ 101. You should really take a course in economics. That way you won't sound so naive.

With automation like we see nowadays labor is getting to one of the least important inputs.

It is this communist things to ignore capital and that is the reason that most socialists economies have failed or gone stagnant.

Those 1%ers that you despise so much are the job producers in this country and are also the ones that give you the necessities and toys that you enjoy so much.

If a billionaire sits around on their "fat ass" collecting money then they have done a lot of hard work earning that money along the line. Unless of course they are like the Kennedys that collects money that their boot legging great grandfather earned. Maybe a John Kerry that married the ugly rich chick.

The people that are greedy fat asses are the welfare queens collecting their paychecks from the government for doing absolutely nothing except voting for scumbags like Obama that keep the checks coming.

By the way, we don't have to give welfare. We only do it so that the Libtards will have a dependent voting base. Disgusting, isn't it?

 

[Conservative65]

Where I live, there was a vote in November of whether or not to add 1% to the local sales tax for roads. I, as part of 75%, voted no. I did so because every time I pay my vehicle property taxes, and I have four, there is a road maintenance fee on it that was added about 10 years ago. Let them use that money. That's what they said it was designed to do yet now they want more.

So what pig-ignorant part of the country do you live in where they can't do math. You'd probably complain when one of your cars hits a pothole and causes more damage than year of taxes would cost.

So physical labor is the only type labor you think is worth anything? I can understand why. You couldn't do anything involving mental ability with your Forrest Gump IQ.

Physical labor is the only way things get done. I mean, you can stick a bunch of one percenters on an island and ask them to produce stuff, but they'd probably come up with nothing without people to do the actual work.

And a Walton heir sitting around on her fat ass collecting billions while we have to subsidize their work force with food stamps is kind of a scam.

We can do math very well. What those of us voting it down realized is that there is enough money to do and all the government wanted was more money. There were provisions in the proposal that allowed the money to be used in other areas not just road maintenance. Next thing you know, they'll want more money for road. I saw it 10 years ago.

You could stick a bunch of menial labor morons on an island and ask them to do something. They'd die. While they may be able to do the work, someone has to explain to them what to do because they're too dumb to figure it out.

 

[jc456]

so you

Where I live, there was a vote in November of whether or not to add 1% to the local sales tax for roads. I, as part of 75%, voted no. I did so because every time I pay my vehicle property taxes, and I have four, there is a road maintenance fee on it that was added about 10 years ago. Let them use that money. That's what they said it was designed to do yet now they want more.

So what pig-ignorant part of the country do you live in where they can't do math. You'd probably complain when one of your cars hits a pothole and causes more damage than year of taxes would cost.

So physical labor is the only type labor you think is worth anything? I can understand why. You couldn't do anything involving mental ability with your Forrest Gump IQ.

Physical labor is the only way things get done. I mean, you can stick a bunch of one percenters on an island and ask them to produce stuff, but they'd probably come up with nothing without people to do the actual work.

And a Walton heir sitting around on her fat ass collecting billions while we have to subsidize their work force with food stamps is kind of a scam.

so you feel that government is part of the one percenters? Yes they are, and they mismanage quite a bit with thier stupid. But on a serious note, which one percenters have anything to do with the roads? It is all run by the government, local, county, state and fed. so who is it you are complaining about?

 

[Conservative65]

Really?

So what is the left's rationale for murdering the unborn? Less people means a decrease in carbon output? Kill the helpless ...clean the planet?

I don't speak for the left!

I believe a women has a right to choose to have an abortion of not, within the rules set by Roe. I also believe the opposition to abortion by jerks like you has nothing to do with compassion for the unborn, since you and other callous conservatives have so often demonstrated a lack of empathy and a callus disregard for those in need, aged and infirm.

So where are the Democrats reform policies to help keep the programs for those in need, the aged and the infirm?

TANF, SS and SSI. Things the GOP and Callous Conservatives oppose, or reduce or tax.

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, andother aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I don't speak for the left!

I believe a women has a right to choose to have an abortion of not, within the rules set by Roe. I also believe the opposition to abortion by jerks like you has nothing to do with compassion for the unborn, since you and other callous conservatives have so often demonstrated a lack of empathy and a callus disregard for those in need, aged and infirm.

So where are the Democrats reform policies to help keep the programs for those in need, the aged and the infirm?

TANF, SS and SSI. Things the GOP and Callous Conservatives oppose, or reduce or tax.

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

 

[Conservative65]

So where are the Democrats reform policies to help keep the programs for those in need, the aged and the infirm?

TANF, SS and SSI. Things the GOP and Callous Conservatives oppose, or reduce or tax.

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

 

[Wry Catcher]

TANF, SS and SSI. Things the GOP and Callous Conservatives oppose, or reduce or tax.

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

 

[Conservative65]

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

Yet you expect me to trust you despite claiming you don't need to prove anything. Typical Liberal mindset of you have to do it but I don't.

My use of fuckhead is a character identification for your kind. I know that my direct experience with this situation far exceeds any traning you may claim to have.

Apparently your so called skills make you believe you, not having been a part of something, know more about it than someone that was there. The only skills you have are arrogance and a sense of being a know it all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

Yet you expect me to trust you despite claiming you don't need to prove anything. Typical Liberal mindset of you have to do it but I don't.

My use of fuckhead is a character identification for your kind. I know that my direct experience with this situation far exceeds any traning you may claim to have.

Apparently your so called skills make you believe you, not having been a part of something, know more about it than someone that was there. The only skills you have are arrogance and a sense of being a know it all.

I don't know it all. But, in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. BTW, where do you keep you dog and cane?

 

[Conservative65]

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

Yet you expect me to trust you despite claiming you don't need to prove anything. Typical Liberal mindset of you have to do it but I don't.

My use of fuckhead is a character identification for your kind. I know that my direct experience with this situation far exceeds any traning you may claim to have.

Apparently your so called skills make you believe you, not having been a part of something, know more about it than someone that was there. The only skills you have are arrogance and a sense of being a know it all.

I don't know it all. But, in the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. BTW, where do you keep you dog and cane?

In the world of reality, someone directly involved knows more about it than someone that wasn't yet claims his training means he knows more.

 

[jc456]

Nothing callous about expecting someone to provide their own food. I'm not asking them to do anything I don't already do. Social Security is nothing more than another bleeding heart redistribution program. When those contributing at a higher amount get a lower proportion in return than they put in compared to the higher return the low wage workers get, it's a nonsense program. SSI is a joke when it comes to disability. I saw it personally with a former employee who, despite foot problems, could do his job which involved strenuous activity. When he was fired for misconduct and blatant insubordination, he quickly applied for SSI claiming he couldn't do things on the same strenuous level which he had no problem doing before getting fired.

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

and exactly why no one believes anything you post.

BTW, your post is nominated for the most stupid post of the day! I think you have really good odds at a win with this latest post.

I like your skillset to more stupid, is best I've seen in a while. Congrats on the nomination.

 

[Conservative65]

Gee, another aprocropol story, the bread and butter of the bull shitters. I knew a guy whose former wife's boss told her his nephew's girlfriend said ....! Get the point?

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

and exactly why no one believes anything you post.

BTW, your post is nominated for the most stupid post of the day! I think you have really good odds at a win with this latest post.

I like your skillset to more stupid, is best I've seen in a while. Congrats on the nomination.

Read back through the conversation I had with WryCatcher. He claims what I posted, something of which I had direct knowledge, is false and does so based on training he claims to have. He says that since I have provided no proof of my claim, it can't be validated. However, when I asked for proof of his training, his response was "I needn't provide you anything". In other words, to him my claim is false because of no proof yet I'm supposed to acknowledge his training despite no proof. Typical of his kind.

 

[jc456]

So you dispute direct knowledge? Sounds as if the truth isn't what you want to hear, you refuse to accept it. He's the typical type person Liberals love.

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

and exactly why no one believes anything you post.

BTW, your post is nominated for the most stupid post of the day! I think you have really good odds at a win with this latest post.

I like your skillset to more stupid, is best I've seen in a while. Congrats on the nomination.

Read back through the conversation I had with WryCatcher. He claims what I posted, something of which I had direct knowledge, is false and does so based on training he claims to have. He says that since I have provided no proof of my claim, it can't be validated. However, when I asked for proof of his training, his response was "I needn't provide you anything". In other words, to him my claim is false because of no proof yet I'm supposed to acknowledge his training despite no proof. Typical of his kind.

And why nomination as most stupid post of the day is so strong. My guidance for you is to let the poor guy go along his stupid path and call it what it is, stupid. There isn't a one of em that deserves any of our knowledge. They still haven't provided the experiment that will prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to 280 PPM does anything to temperature. See I have Herr Koch 1901's test that proves our side. So we have the game and they have stupid!!!!

psst, and that's all of the left.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm trained in interviewing and interrogation, and have taken my share of courses outside of my major, including epistemology. Thus A posteriori is my guiding principle on this message board and was during my career. One which the conservative Messiah even understood: "Trust but Verify". My experience tells me not to trust unless evidence is provided.

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

and exactly why no one believes anything you post.

BTW, your post is nominated for the most stupid post of the day! I think you have really good odds at a win with this latest post.

I like your skillset to more stupid, is best I've seen in a while. Congrats on the nomination.

Read back through the conversation I had with WryCatcher. He claims what I posted, something of which I had direct knowledge, is false and does so based on training he claims to have. He says that since I have provided no proof of my claim, it can't be validated. However, when I asked for proof of his training, his response was "I needn't provide you anything". In other words, to him my claim is false because of no proof yet I'm supposed to acknowledge his training despite no proof. Typical of his kind.

And why nomination as most stupid post of the day is so strong. My guidance for you is to let the poor guy go along his stupid path and call it what it is, stupid. There isn't a one of em that deserves any of our knowledge. They still haven't provided the experiment that will prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to 280 PPM does anything to temperature. See I have Herr Koch 1901's test that proves our side. So we have the game and they have stupid!!!!

psst, and that's all of the left.

He's the typical all I have to do is say it but you have to prove it type.

 

[jc456]

So you do dispute direct knowledge and witnessing something happen. Apparently the training you recieved didn't teach you that someone that sees it happen is a far better source than someone like you that wants to believe it didn't. Seems your training is faulty fuckhead. You don't have to believe me for it to be true. That's not a requirement. However, if you're going to question the authenticity of someone that was part of it happening, you're not worth the piece of paper you claim to have received. Prove that you have that training.

My training and experience far exceeds yours. I know from direct knowledge that an interview of two, who both saw the same event, are not always in sync. I also know from direct experience that interviews of one person a couple of days apart can elicit different and sometimes contradictory information.

I needn't prove anything to you, or anyone who chooses to call me "fuckhead", or any of the other popular pejoratives used by the dishonest and arrogant. Your use of the word "fuckhead" suggests you lack the skills to discuss things rationally and are in fact childish.

That I don't believe stories posted on this forum isn't news, the internet is filled with lies, half-truths and populated by mendacious ideologues, as well as honest, rational normal people. My skills allow me to the ability to discern between them.

and exactly why no one believes anything you post.

BTW, your post is nominated for the most stupid post of the day! I think you have really good odds at a win with this latest post.

I like your skillset to more stupid, is best I've seen in a while. Congrats on the nomination.

Read back through the conversation I had with WryCatcher. He claims what I posted, something of which I had direct knowledge, is false and does so based on training he claims to have. He says that since I have provided no proof of my claim, it can't be validated. However, when I asked for proof of his training, his response was "I needn't provide you anything". In other words, to him my claim is false because of no proof yet I'm supposed to acknowledge his training despite no proof. Typical of his kind.

And why nomination as most stupid post of the day is so strong. My guidance for you is to let the poor guy go along his stupid path and call it what it is, stupid. There isn't a one of em that deserves any of our knowledge. They still haven't provided the experiment that will prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to 280 PPM does anything to temperature. See I have Herr Koch 1901's test that proves our side. So we have the game and they have stupid!!!!

psst, and that's all of the left.

He's the typical all I have to do is say it but you have to prove it type.

Exactly! ..................................................... stupid!!!!!

 

[JohnA]

This is not about woman and children being killed in broad daylight dumb fuck. This is about a woman and her reproduction System get the fuck out of her life and let her and her quack decide control freak , mother fucker

The child is just as dead when it is ripped out of its mother's womb and thrown into the dumpster as if the mother had thrown it off a bridge, you dumb fuck.

A woman does not have the moral right to kill another person for the sake of convenience. She is the one that is trying to be a control freak by killing her child, you stupid mutherfvcker. It is not her body that she is controlling. It is putting another human being to death and that is wrong.

It is better to chose life over convenience and if you don't understand that then you are no better than the Nazis with their program of mass killings.

You need to understand that those that support abortion do not consider a first trimester fetus a human being. I do not agree with it....but I understand why they think that.

Do you realize that you can hear the heartbeat of a fetus when the woman is two months pregnant?
If you can hear a heartbeat that is a human being and not just a lump of cells like the left are telling women.

But at the same time, whereas you can hear a heartbeat, most of the vital organs are not developed. So whereas I agree with your thinking, I understand why others do not see it as a human being.

My problem is that the women are being told that it is just cells and a lump when it isn't.
At 8 weeks -

• The embryo is measures about 18 mm (3/4 inch) in length.

• Their arms and legs are growing and location of the elbows and toes are visible..

• The feet and hand buds have appeared.

• Starts to practice moving (not felt by mom till week 20)

• The stomach is being made from part of the gut.

• The face is beginning to take shape.

• Your baby's mouth and nostrils are starting to develop.

• Teeth begin to develop under the gums.

• The eyes can now be seen as small hollows on each side of the head.

Now if they are fully informed about this before they make their decisions that is fine with me.
It is the left who are fighting against giving women this information.

 

[JohnA]

This is not about woman and children being killed in broad daylight dumb fuck. This is about a woman and her reproduction System get the fuck out of her life and let her and her quack decide control freak , mother fucker

The child is just as dead when it is ripped out of its mother's womb and thrown into the dumpster as if the mother had thrown it off a bridge, you dumb fuck.

A woman does not have the moral right to kill another person for the sake of convenience. She is the one that is trying to be a control freak by killing her child, you stupid mutherfvcker. It is not her body that she is controlling. It is putting another human being to death and that is wrong.

It is better to chose life over convenience and if you don't understand that then you are no better than the Nazis with their program of mass killings.

You need to understand that those that support abortion do not consider a first trimester fetus a human being. I do not agree with it....but I understand why they think that.

Do you realize that you can hear the heartbeat of a fetus when the woman is two months pregnant?
If you can hear a heartbeat that is a human being and not just a lump of cells like the left are telling women.

But at the same time, whereas you can hear a heartbeat, most of the vital organs are not developed. So whereas I agree with your thinking, I understand why others do not see it as a human being.

My problem is that the women are being told that it is just cells and a lump when it isn't.
At 8 weeks -

• The embryo is measures about 18 mm (3/4 inch) in length.

• Their arms and legs are growing and location of the elbows and toes are visible..

• The feet and hand buds have appeared.

• Starts to practice moving (not felt by mom till week 20)

• The stomach is being made from part of the gut.

• The face is beginning to take shape.

• Your baby's mouth and nostrils are starting to develop.

• Teeth begin to develop under the gums.

• The eyes can now be seen as small hollows on each side of the head.

Now if they are fully informed about this before they make their decisions that is fine with me.
It is the left who are fighting against giving women this information.