PDA

View Full Version : tPF Obama, the Man



Chris
07-13-2016, 08:56 PM
Here's a short passage of his Dallas speech:


Now, I’m not naive. I have spoken at too many memorials during the course of this presidency. I’ve hugged too many families who have lost a loved one to senseless violence. And I’ve seen how a spirit of unity, born of tragedy, can gradually dissipate, overtaken by the return to business as usual, by inertia and old habits and expediency.

OBAMA: I see how easily we slip back into our old notions, because they’re comfortable, we’re used to them. I’ve seen how inadequate words can be in bringing about lasting change. I’ve seen how inadequate my own words have been. And so, I’m reminded of a passage in John’s Gospel, “let us love, not with words or speech, but with actions and in truth.”


So what do I see when he says this, what do I hear? I hear a man who is reasonably intelligent, who has all his life relied on reason to envision solutions, who thought if only he had power, he could change things, make a difference, and thought that could be accomplished by eloquent speech--realizing perhaps for the first time that his dream, his reasoning, his words, had failed him, that he is in fact no different than any other man.

PolWatch
07-13-2016, 08:59 PM
The only power the presidency bestows is the bully pulpit.

Peter1469
07-13-2016, 09:10 PM
If you would have taken a shot every time he said I or me at that memorial service you likely would have died of alcohol poisoning.

Cigar
07-13-2016, 09:18 PM
:grin: I see Uncontrollable, Unapologetic and a Adult who will tell you exactly what you need to hear, like it or not, not what you want to hear. If you need someone to tell you what you want to hear, that will be sufficiently covered at The RNC Convention.

Professor Peabody
07-14-2016, 11:59 AM
Here's a short passage of his Dallas speech:


So what do I see when he says this, what do I hear? I hear a man who is reasonably intelligent, who has all his life relied on reason to envision solutions, who thought if only he had power, he could change things, make a difference, and thought that could be accomplished by eloquent speech--realizing perhaps for the first time that his dream, his reasoning, his words, had failed him, that he is in fact no different than any other man.

What I don't hear Obama or black lives matter talking about is the killing fields of Chicago.

Jan. 1, 2015 - Dec. 31, 2015 - 2,988 shooting victims.
Jan. 1, 2016 - July 14, 2016 - 2,110 shooting victims.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

They're on track for a new record. They're out there protesting a few hundred blacks killed by cops while in the process of doing something stupid, while blacks in Chicago are killing each other at about 10 A DAY! But, the bigger problem is the Cops...really? :rollseyes: They have 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned till they address that.

texan
07-14-2016, 02:34 PM
:grin: I see Uncontrollable, Unapologetic and a Adult who will tell you exactly what you need to hear, like it or not, not what you want to hear. If you need someone to tell you what you want to hear, that will be sufficiently covered at The RNC Convention.


At a memorial service? Speaks volumes Cigar!

texan
07-14-2016, 02:36 PM
He can beat his stupid BLM racist drum anywhere else.............Not at the service. Classless!!!!

Peter1469
07-14-2016, 02:38 PM
What I don't hear Obama or black lives matter talking about is the killing fields of Chicago.

Jan. 1, 2015 - Dec. 31, 2015 - 2,988 shooting victims.
Jan. 1, 2016 - July 14, 2016 - 2,110 shooting victims.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

They're on track for a new record. They're out there protesting a few hundred blacks killed by cops while in the process of doing something stupid, while blacks in Chicago are killing each other at about 10 A DAY! But, the bigger problem is the Cops...really? :rollseyes: They have 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned till they address that.

They are just late abortions.

As it is, 50% of the black population gets sucked out of the uterus.

The left is 100% in favor of it.

The right is not. Yet we are racists.

What is wrong with this picture.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 03:13 PM
If you would have taken a shot every time he said I or me at that memorial service you likely would have died of alcohol poisoning.


He's an egomaniac, no doubt about it. He always wants to be the center of attention.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 03:16 PM
They are just late abortions.

As it is, 50% of the black population gets sucked out of the uterus.

The left is 100% in favor of it.

The right is not. Yet we are racists.

What is wrong with this picture.


If one wanted to conduct genocide, abortion would be an extremely effective way to do that but still remain in the good graces of the politically correct left.

Peter1469
07-14-2016, 03:19 PM
If one wanted to conduct genocide, abortion would be an extremely effective way to do that but still remain in the good graces of the politically correct left.

Margret Sanger said that as well.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 03:26 PM
Margret Sanger said that as well.


I don't know who that is

Chris
07-14-2016, 03:48 PM
I was trying to get at something else though, something more general than just Obama. something more to do with thinking using reason to dream up solutions and words to implement them is all that effective. I think part of the problem, is a disconnect between those ideas and reality. Obama keeps saying this is the America I know, but it isn't the America he dreams of.

silvereyes
07-14-2016, 04:28 PM
If you would have taken a shot every time he said I or me at that memorial service you likely would have died of alcohol poisoning.

Lol. You said shot and meant alcohol. I wonder if anyone thought bullet.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 04:36 PM
Lol. You said shot and meant alcohol. I wonder if anyone thought bullet.

no one who actually read his full comment thought that.

Chris
07-14-2016, 04:39 PM
Here I thought he was talking about...

https://s32.postimg.org/wkjbmnhmt/shotput_o.gif

Peter1469
07-14-2016, 05:32 PM
I don't know who that is

A darling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) of the progressive movement. A proponent of eugenics. Admired by Adolph Hitler. Basically she wanted to use abortion to get rid of the darkies. Today 50% of the blacks are aborted. So she has had some affect.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg/800px-MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg

She wanted inferior people to die.

del
07-14-2016, 05:42 PM
you're lucky she's dead, then

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 06:05 PM
A darling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) of the progressive movement. A proponent of eugenics. Admired by Adolph Hitler. Basically she wanted to use abortion to get rid of the darkies. Today 50% of the blacks are aborted. So she has had some affect.

She wanted inferior people to die.

That's not accurate.

del
07-14-2016, 06:06 PM
That's not accurate.

shhh

you can have accuracy or you can have entertainment

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 06:12 PM
A darling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) of the progressive movement. A proponent of eugenics. Admired by Adolph Hitler. Basically she wanted to use abortion to get rid of the darkies. Today 50% of the blacks are aborted. So she has had some affect.



She wanted inferior people to die.


That's not accurate.

Ok. Instead of just saying uh-huh, refute his comment factually.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 06:17 PM
A darling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger) of the progressive movement. A proponent of eugenics. Admired by Adolph Hitler. Basically she wanted to use abortion to get rid of the darkies. Today 50% of the blacks are aborted. So she has had some affect.

She wanted inferior people to die.

I just did a quick search to see who this woman was. Here's one of her quotes.....
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race


I'd like to see someone defend that.

maineman
07-14-2016, 06:31 PM
As I watched the speech, it seemed to me that the people in the audience truly appreciated his words. He was interrupted by applause on numerous occasions and by standing ovations at least half a dozen times. He appeared to me - and to the audience he was speaking live to - to strike the right tone and to tell the truths that the nation needed to hear. You guys up north of the border better figure out how to get along better or I'll just have to put my plans to return to Maine on hold and stay down here in Mexico until things improve!

Cigar
07-14-2016, 06:32 PM
:grin: Love it

Cigar
07-14-2016, 06:33 PM
As I watched the speech, it seemed to me that the people in the audience truly appreciated his words. He was interrupted by applause on numerous occasions and by standing ovations at least half a dozen times. He appeared to me - and to the audience he was speaking live to - to strike the right tone and to tell the truths that the nation needed to hear. You guys up north of the border better figure out how to get along better or I'll just have to put my plans to return to Maine on hold and stay down here in Mexico until things improve!


Nothing to worry about, just some dinosaurs losing their power and whining all the way to the graveyard.

Chris
07-14-2016, 06:38 PM
As I watched the speech, it seemed to me that the people in the audience truly appreciated his words. He was interrupted by applause on numerous occasions and by standing ovations at least half a dozen times. He appeared to me - and to the audience he was speaking live to - to strike the right tone and to tell the truths that the nation needed to hear. You guys up north of the border better figure out how to get along better or I'll just have to put my plans to return to Maine on hold and stay down here in Mexico until things improve!

I wasn't trying to attack him, but paint him as human.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 06:38 PM
I just did a quick search to see who this woman was. Here's one of her quotes.....

I'd like to see someone defend that.

Quotes out of context are never a good idea.

I'm not going to defend Sanger, but her quote in context takes on a slightly different meaning.

This was an era of great poverty. Families of 8-10 children living in disease and squalor. Infant mortality rates that were worse than in Africa today.

Here it is in context.



"The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner's family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. [Footnote: Problems in Eugenics, London , 1913.] Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:

Deaths During First Year.

1st born children 23%
2nd " " 20%
3rd " " 21%
4th " " 23%
]5th " " 26%
6th " " 29%
7th " " 31%
8th " " 33%
9th " " 36%
10th " " 41%
11th " " 51%
12th " " 60%

Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.


Again, it was a far different time. Sanger was not talking literally. She wasn't advocating people killing their infants. She was however a proponent of birth control and abortion.

As I said, I'm not defending her. Many of her ideas are backwards today. I've just seen a lot of misquotes and quotes taken out of context.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 06:43 PM
I just did a quick search to see who this woman was. Here's one of her quotes.....

I'd like to see someone defend that.


Quotes out of context are never a good idea.

I'm not going to defend Sanger, but her quote in context takes on a slightly different meaning.

This was an era of great poverty. Families of 8-10 children living in disease and squalor. Infant mortality rates that were worse than in Africa today.

Here it is in context.



Again, it was a far different time. Sanger was not talking literally. She wasn't advocating people killing their infants. She was however a proponent of birth control and abortion.

As I said, I'm not defending her. Many of her ideas are backwards today. I've just seen a lot of misquotes and quotes taken out of context.

I wanted to see someone defend that quote . I got what I asked for.

Common
07-14-2016, 06:44 PM
Here's a short passage of his Dallas speech:




So what do I see when he says this, what do I hear? I hear a man who is reasonably intelligent, who has all his life relied on reason to envision solutions, who thought if only he had power, he could change things, make a difference, and thought that could be accomplished by eloquent speech--realizing perhaps for the first time that his dream, his reasoning, his words, had failed him, that he is in fact no different than any other man.

No man can change anything unless they can unite people not divide them.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 06:44 PM
Liberals..... You gotta love em. They are so entertaining.

Chris
07-14-2016, 06:48 PM
No man can change anything unless they can unite people not divide them.

Agree, it has to be the actions of many. But my point too is change comes by actions and not by design.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 06:49 PM
I wanted to see someone defend that quote . I got what I asked for.

I didn't defend it. I put into context.

Didn't you just say..."Instead of just saying uh-huh, refute his comment factually."

You basically said "uh-huh".

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 07:03 PM
I didn't defend it. I put into context.

Didn't you just say..."Instead of just saying uh-huh, refute his comment factually."

You basically said "uh-huh".


Theres no context which van ease that one. She was an extremist pure and simple. She's a perfect representation of modern liberalism. She was ahead of her time.

maineman
07-14-2016, 07:05 PM
Sanger's quote was clearly a hypothetical, but brutally honest. Those of us alive today have no idea what life was like in the days before the medical advances we take for granted. Infant mortality was horrendous and, without birth control of any kind, families had way too many babies for them to properly be cared for.

I love how pro-life righties just LOVE that little fetus until he's born... and then, they could absolutely give a shit about them or the problems their mothers have in raising them. NOT THEIR PROBLEM.... but the mother's pregnancy is certainly something they make their business.

Fucking disgusting.

Chris
07-14-2016, 07:21 PM
Singer was a progressive whose faith in reason led her to believe she with the force of the State could re-engineer man and redesign society.

Chris
07-14-2016, 07:22 PM
Sanger's quote was clearly a hypothetical, but brutally honest. Those of us alive today have no idea what life was like in the days before the medical advances we take for granted. Infant mortality was horrendous and, without birth control of any kind, families had way too many babies for them to properly be cared for.

I love how pro-life righties just LOVE that little fetus until he's born... and then, they could absolutely give a shit about them or the problems their mothers have in raising them. NOT THEIR PROBLEM.... but the mother's pregnancy is certainly something they make their business.

Fucking disgusting.

What makes you say the right cares less about babies born than babies yet unborn?

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 07:28 PM
Theres no context which van ease that one. She was an extremist pure and simple. She's a perfect representation of modern liberalism. She was ahead of her time.

So you didn't read the post?

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 07:29 PM
Singer was a progressive whose faith in reason led her to believe she with the force of the State could re-engineer man and redesign society.

To an extent that's true.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 07:31 PM
Singer was a progressive whose faith in reason led her to believe she with the force of the State could re-engineer man and redesign society.

I've read some of her stuff today. Her views can't be defended.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 07:48 PM
So you didn't read the post?


I did.

The left will go to any means to support and justify abortion. It is so bad, they will ignore the history of someone who would use the procedure as a social engineering tool or execute a system of genocide.

In order to be a modern liberal, one must ignore an awful lot. You need to have no conscience.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 07:51 PM
I did.

The left will go to any means to support and justify abortion. It is so bad, they will ignore the history of someone who would use the procedure as a social engineering tool or execute a system of genocide.

In order to be a modern liberal, one must ignore an awful lot. You need to have no conscience.

That simply isn't true. I have a conscience.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 08:01 PM
That simply isn't true. I have a conscience.


The evidence says that it's not something you pay much attention to.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:04 PM
That simply isn't true. I have a conscience.

But in your worldview a conscience is merely a biological mechanism to help the species reproduce. Sanctioning abortion would appear to be at odds with such a "conscience".

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:05 PM
The evidence says that it's not something you pay much attention to.

But from his position why would he? Why would he need to pay any attention to it at all? It will do what it needs to do on its own.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:06 PM
The evidence says that it's not something you pay much attention to.

I do very much.

I could also say that people who demonize an entire group of people based on some idiots may not have a conscience. Or that people who support politicians who wish to not recognize the plight of less fortunate people may not have a conscience. People who want to bomb countries because of the actions of individuals may not have a conscience.

But I wont, because I know you have a conscience and so do most people. We believe that our values are correct and those that run contrary to ours are not correct. But don't think for a second that I suppose that the people I disagree with politically don't have a conscience. I just disagree with their political philosophy.

But believe what you wish. I now I have a conscience and a moral code.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:09 PM
I do very much.

I could also say that people who demonize an entire group of people based on some idiots may not have a conscience. Or that people who support politicians who wish to not recognize the plight of less fortunate people may not have a conscience. People who want to bomb countries because of the actions of individuals may not have a conscience.

But I wont, because I know you have a conscience and so do most people. We believe that our values are correct and those that run contrary to ours are not correct. But don't think for a second that I suppose that the people I disagree with politically don't have a conscience. I just disagree with their political philosophy.

But believe what you wish. I now I have a conscience and a moral code.

A moral code based on what? Evolution? Weren't you telling us just a few months back how morality is a product of evolution?

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 08:10 PM
I do very much.

I could also say that people who demonize an entire group of people based on some idiots may not have a conscience. Or that people who support politicians who wish to not recognize the plight of less fortunate people may not have a conscience. People who want to bomb countries because of the actions of individuals may not have a conscience.

But I wont, because I know you have a conscience and so do most people. We believe that our values are correct and those that run contrary to ours are not correct. But don't think for a second that I suppose that the people I disagree with politically don't have a conscience. I just disagree with their political philosophy.

But believe what you wish. I now I have a conscience and a moral code.

Odd rambling response. That tells me they one isn't quite as sure of their position as they thought they were

I suspect that I struck a nerve.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:11 PM
But in your worldview a conscience is merely a biological mechanism to help the species reproduce. Sanctioning abortion would appear to be at odds with such a "conscience".

That's partially true. I do believe that morality is a function of evolution.

My conscience isn't at odds with abortion. I certainly think abortion should be a last resort measure. I think education and avoiding abortion is important. But I do think that a woman has a right to choose. I also think that bringing a child into a horrible life isn't such a great thing either. Brining a child into the world is a very important thing and shouldn't be done lightly, nor should it be done when one isn't able to do it properly or is a child themselves.

I know we will never convince each other that our view is right. So there's no point in doing that.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:13 PM
Odd rambling response. That tells me they one isn't quite as sure of their position as they thought they were

I suspect that I struck a nerve.

Nope. No nerve.

I only meant that I know you're a person with a conscience and feelings. Just because we don't have the same political ideals doesn't mean you're a bad person or are lacking a conscience.

I'm quite sure of my position.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:17 PM
A moral code based on what? Evolution? Weren't you telling us just a few months back how morality is a product of evolution?

It's such a long discussion to have, but the gist of it is that yes, I believe that morality has been instrumental in our evolutionary success and that it is a product of evolution.

I'm not an adherent, but I agree with much of the philosophy of Humanism.

Chris
07-14-2016, 08:19 PM
But Obama! Shhhhh.

Now recall the rant on how to talk to a liberal.


At the funeral service for five slain Dallas cops, Barack Obama delivered another one of his needlessly politicized lectures. As is customary these days, those who were critical of his rhetoric were branded racists and unthinking haters.

...I doubt the president is substantively more partisan than the average politician, but like most people on the Left these days, he no longer bothers to make a distinction between a policy position and a moral struggle.

The issue of gun control, for example, isn’t a good-faith disagreement between people of different persuasions, but — like civil rights or suffrage — a struggle waged by the righteous against the evil....

...Seemingly every political battle waged by the modern Democratic Party — gay rights, immigration, climate change, inequality — is imbued with a kind spiritual certitude that justifies circumventing debate. If a person who opposes the administration’s transgender bathroom policy is just like a Klansman, why even discuss the matter?...

...Maybe it’s that he never offers a fair or reasonable assessment of his opposition’s positions before pretending to debunk them. Or maybe it’s that, no matter what actually happens, he clings to a predetermined message before blaming the half of America that didn’t vote for him....

@ How Obama Divides America (http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/14/how-obama-has-bitterly-divided-america/)

Chris
07-14-2016, 08:20 PM
It's such a long discussion to have, but the gist of it is that yes, I believe that morality has been instrumental in our evolutionary success and that it is a product of evolution.

I'm not an adherent, but I agree with much of the philosophy of Humanism.


Or is evolution a product of morality?

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:21 PM
That's partially true. I do believe that morality is a function of evolution.

My conscience isn't at odds with abortion. I certainly think abortion should be a last resort measure. I think education and avoiding abortion is important. But I do think that a woman has a right to choose. I also think that bringing a child into a horrible life isn't such a great thing either. Brining a child into the world is a very important thing and shouldn't be done lightly, nor should it be done when one isn't able to do it properly or is a child themselves.

I know we will never convince each other that our view is right. So there's no point in doing that.

You were doing well until you decided to flee from substantial dialogue. I'll respond to the meat.

If morality is a function of evolution (never mind for now the logical impossibility of that being the case) how could a practice of destroying one's young be reconciled with an evolutionary mechanism geared precisely to the reproduction of the species? It doesn't make any sense. You see the problem here, right?

Sense, I'm not trying to persuade you about abortion. I'm conflicted about it myself.

Tahuyaman
07-14-2016, 08:23 PM
I don't know how anyone with a conscience can support abortion.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:26 PM
It's such a long discussion to have, but the gist of it is that yes, I believe that morality has been instrumental in our evolutionary success and that it is a product of evolution.

I'm not an adherent, but I agree with much of the philosophy of Humanism.

Morality may very well have been instrumental in our success as a species but if that's all it's for it's not morality. It's just an evolved behavior. No different from any of our evolved behaviors and no different from the evolved behaviors of any other organism. Morality is by definition a matter off right and wrong. Your position is forever stuck in a logical circle. It's good for the human species to thrive because human well being and happiness is good. If we have to keep referring back to ourselves we're stuck.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:35 PM
You were doing well until you decided to flee from substantial dialogue. I'll respond to the meat.

If morality is a function of evolution (never mind for now the logical impossibility of that being the case) how could a practice of destroying one's young be reconciled with an evolutionary mechanism geared precisely to the reproduction of the species? It doesn't make any sense. You see the problem here, right?

Sense, I'm not trying to persuade you about abortion. I'm conflicted about it myself.

See, why do you insist on doing that? Why not just address what I said?

For one, I don't see how it is a "logical impossibility". Secondly, on an individual level it may make no sense to abort one's progeny, however it could make sense if it saved your other offspring. Speaking from sort of a biological perspective, it could make sense for a mother to abort one's young if the environmental conditions aren't right etc.. In fact there are a few animal species who are selective about when they reproduce and some animals will self abort if those conditions aren't ideal. Some mammals will actually reabsorb a fetus if its a harsh winter with few resources or if the group is overpopulated.

Common Sense
07-14-2016, 08:40 PM
Morality may very well have been instrumental in our success as a species but if that's all it's for it's not morality. It's just an evolved behavior. No different from any of our evolved behaviors and no different from the evolved behaviors of any other organism. Morality is by definition a matter off right and wrong. Your position is forever stuck in a logical circle. It's good for the human species to thrive because human well being and happiness is good. If we have to keep referring back to ourselves we're stuck.

Morality isn't exactly right and wrong. It's a system to which we can evaluate the extent to which something is right or wrong. There are plenty of instances of moral ambiguity.

I'm not stuck in a loop because I never asserted that. I haven't claimed to know our purpose or if we have one.

You believe in the divine as far as I know. I don't or I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it's real, so I look at all of this from an analytical perspective. That's not to say that I don't think that life is amazing and wondrous and beyond explanation. But I see us a super successful mammal that has been lucky enough to thrive and much of that is owed to an evolved morality...and opposable thumbs.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:51 PM
See, why do you insist on doing that? Why not just address what I said?

For one, I don't see how it is a "logical impossibility". Secondly, on an individual level it may make no sense to abort one's progeny, however it could make sense if it saved your other offspring. Speaking from sort of a biological perspective, it could make sense for a mother to abort one's young if the environmental conditions aren't right etc.. In fact there are a few animal species who are selective about when they reproduce and some animals will self abort if those conditions aren't ideal. Some mammals will actually reabsorb a fetus if its a harsh winter with few resources or if the group is overpopulated.

I just did. You said it was pointless but I did it anyway. It discussion is pointless why even come here?

That's easy to explain.


Your position is forever stuck in a logical circle. It's good for the human species to thrive because human well being and happiness is good. If we have to keep referring back to ourselves we're stuck.

Human beings simply cannot be the both the subject and object of morality.

The individual level is immaterial. We're talking about an evolved behavior the ultimate goal of which is the propagation of the species. Anyway, yes, it could make sense if it saved the other offspring but abortion doesn't always do that. Sometimes, it "saves" the mother from a less ideal material existence or from the responsibility of raising a child. Now your reasoning would make more sense if in fact abortions were restricted to the poverty stricken but they're not. All sorts of people have chosen abortion for all sorts of reasons. Clearly, there is something else going on here. We're not going on instinct but on a host of different influences the least of which are biological.

Green Arrow
07-14-2016, 08:53 PM
What I don't hear Obama or black lives matter talking about is the killing fields of Chicago.

Jan. 1, 2015 - Dec. 31, 2015 - 2,988 shooting victims.
Jan. 1, 2016 - July 14, 2016 - 2,110 shooting victims.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

They're on track for a new record. They're out there protesting a few hundred blacks killed by cops while in the process of doing something stupid, while blacks in Chicago are killing each other at about 10 A DAY! But, the bigger problem is the Cops...really? :rollseyes: They have 0 credibility as far as I'm concerned till they address that.

That's because it's generally not good tact to go to a memorial service for murdered police officers and say, "This was pretty bad, but you know what's worse? Chicago."

I mean, really.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:55 PM
Morality isn't exactly right and wrong. It's a system to which we can evaluate the extent to which something is right or wrong. There are plenty of instances of moral ambiguity.

I'm not stuck in a loop because I never asserted that. I haven't claimed to know our purpose or if we have one.

You believe in the divine as far as I know. I don't or I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it's real, so I look at all of this from an analytical perspective. That's not to say that I don't think that life is amazing and wondrous and beyond explanation. But I see us a super successful mammal that has been lucky enough to thrive and much of that is owed to an evolved morality...and opposable thumbs.

That 's all morality is. Morality is predicated on right and wrong without which it makes no sense to speak of morality. We may as well call it instinct at that point. Yes, there are plenty of instances of moral ambiguity but very few of us would claim there is no such thing as right or wrong.

I'm not trying to get you to believe. All I'm trying to do is explain to you that an evolved morality is no morality at all. It's just another biological mechanism and its amoral by definition.

Mister D
07-14-2016, 08:55 PM
well, I'll be back tomorrow. night all.

Green Arrow
07-14-2016, 08:55 PM
President Obama seems like an okay dude to me, as a person. I don't approve over much of his job as president, but I don't hate him, wish him any ill will, or even really place him any lower than the middle of the pack in terms of quality presidents.

Chris
07-14-2016, 09:03 PM
Morality isn't exactly right and wrong. It's a system to which we can evaluate the extent to which something is right or wrong. There are plenty of instances of moral ambiguity.

Agreee, to a point. The way I would put it is morality is the guide to justification or condemnation of actions towards others. It is absolute inasmuch as we all make moral judgments and share moral guidelines, but it's subjective or ambiguous in each our own conclusions because we are, after all, human and flawed.

maineman
07-14-2016, 09:31 PM
What makes you say the right cares less about babies born than babies yet unborn?

because they are constantly cutting programs like AFDC, WIC and Headstart.

maineman
07-14-2016, 09:35 PM
I don't know how anyone with a conscience can support abortion.

so, because you don't KNOW how to do something, that means that it cannot be done. Brilliant. That must make, for you, everything from string theory to balancing a checkbook be beyond all human understanding.

Hal Jordan
07-15-2016, 01:16 AM
President Obama seems like an okay dude to me, as a person. I don't approve over much of his job as president, but I don't hate him, wish him any ill will, or even really place him any lower than the middle of the pack in terms of quality presidents.

This is my view as well.

Hal Jordan
07-15-2016, 01:18 AM
so, because you don't KNOW how to do something, that means that it cannot be done. Brilliant. That must make, for you, everything from string theory to balancing a checkbook be beyond all human understanding.

So explain a support of abortion, then, rather than mocking.

Oboe
07-15-2016, 05:38 AM
Here's a short passage of his Dallas speech:




So what do I see when he says this, what do I hear? I hear a man who is reasonably intelligent, who has all his life relied on reason to envision solutions, who thought if only he had power, he could change things, make a difference, and thought that could be accomplished by eloquent speech--realizing perhaps for the first time that his dream, his reasoning, his words, had failed him, that he is in fact no different than any other man.


:vomit::vomit::vomit:

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 05:40 AM
you're lucky she's dead, then

She inspired Hitler and the Nazis.

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 05:42 AM
That's not accurate.

Her writings suggest otherwise. I understand that the pro-abort crowd desperately wants to rehabilitate her image. Because the truth makes them look like ghouls.

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 05:44 AM
And she hated blacks. Her organization eliminated far more of them than Nazis did Jews.
Quotes out of context are never a good idea.

I'm not going to defend Sanger, but her quote in context takes on a slightly different meaning.

This was an era of great poverty. Families of 8-10 children living in disease and squalor. Infant mortality rates that were worse than in Africa today.

Here it is in context.



Again, it was a far different time. Sanger was not talking literally. She wasn't advocating people killing their infants. She was however a proponent of birth control and abortion.

As I said, I'm not defending her. Many of her ideas are backwards today. I've just seen a lot of misquotes and quotes taken out of context.

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 05:47 AM
Sanger's quote was clearly a hypothetical, but brutally honest. Those of us alive today have no idea what life was like in the days before the medical advances we take for granted. Infant mortality was horrendous and, without birth control of any kind, families had way too many babies for them to properly be cared for.

I love how pro-life righties just LOVE that little fetus until he's born... and then, they could absolutely give a shit about them or the problems their mothers have in raising them. NOT THEIR PROBLEM.... but the mother's pregnancy is certainly something they make their business.

Fucking disgusting.

Right. Best to kill them.

maineman
07-15-2016, 06:43 AM
Her writings suggest otherwise. I understand that the pro-abort crowd desperately wants to rehabilitate her image. Because the truth makes them look like ghouls.

the spin tends to make HER look like a ghoul. It has no bearing on me. And it really is incorrect to call people who want to preserve a woman's right to make her own decisions concerning her reproductive system "pro-abort". I am certainly not FOR abortion. I am for letting a woman make that difficult choice herself in conjunction with her spouse, her doctor and her conscience, and, if she has one, her God. I don't think that laws should be written by rich white old men that would prevent that choice from being exercised.

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 06:54 AM
the spin tends to make HER look like a ghoul. It has no bearing on me. And it really is incorrect to call people who want to preserve a woman's right to make her own decisions concerning her reproductive system "pro-abort". I am certainly not FOR abortion. I am for letting a woman make that difficult choice herself in conjunction with her spouse, her doctor and her conscience, and, if she has one, her God. I don't think that laws should be written by rich white old men that would prevent that choice from being exercised.

If Roe v Wade is reexamined at SCOTUS, the key issue will be the single word homicide.

Can we justify the death of humans which are not naturally caused.

Chris
07-15-2016, 07:23 AM
because they are constantly cutting programs like AFDC, WIC and Headstart.

Ah, so your assumption is that those programs actually help babies. I'd say liberal don't care about babies before and after birth. They do not seek policies that lift people out of poverty but keep them there.

maineman
07-15-2016, 07:24 AM
time will tell.

Chris
07-15-2016, 07:24 AM
:vomit::vomit::vomit:

See a doctor, soon.

maineman
07-15-2016, 07:26 AM
Ah, so your assumption is that those programs actually help babies. I'd say liberal don't care about babies before and after birth. They do not seek policies that lift people out of poverty but keep them there.

and you think that programs that provide assistance to families with children, or nutrition assistance to women, infants and children, or that provide quality day care for small children so that their mothers can reenter the work force and get off the dole.... are somehow DETRIMENTAL to children?

Up is down. Black is white. We've fallen down the rabbit hole.

Chris
07-15-2016, 08:23 AM
and you think that programs that provide assistance to families with children, or nutrition assistance to women, infants and children, or that provide quality day care for small children so that their mothers can reenter the work force and get off the dole.... are somehow DETRIMENTAL to children?

Up is down. Black is white. We've fallen down the rabbit hole.



Demonstrate that those programs lift people out of poverty.

...

Didn't think so.

Common Sense
07-15-2016, 08:26 AM
And she hated blacks. Her organization eliminated far more of them than Nazis did Jews.

That is a distortion as well.

maineman
07-15-2016, 08:43 AM
Demonstrate that those programs lift people out of poverty.

...

Didn't think so.

people lift themselves out of poverty. those programs help those who want to try, and, at a minimum, they can assist in feeding children.

Chris
07-15-2016, 08:46 AM
people lift themselves out of poverty. those programs help those who want to try, and, at a minimum, they can assist in feeding children.

Demonstrate that. Keep in mind that prior to the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was in deep decline. Since the War it has remained virtually steady at around 15%. Who exactly is being lifted out of poverty?

Tahuyaman
07-15-2016, 09:01 AM
Government programs/handouts don't help people out of poverty. Those programs help keep them in poverty and dependent upon government. That's by design.

We've squandered tens of trillions of dollars on these programs and all its done is expand the dependent class. We would have been better off by just cutting a check for 500K or so and giving that to each recipient.

maineman
07-15-2016, 09:04 AM
how does one demonstrate that people are the ones who lift themselves out of poverty? How else would it occur?

del
07-15-2016, 09:05 AM
Demonstrate that. Keep in mind that prior to the War on Poverty, the poverty rate was in deep decline. Since the War it has remained virtually steady at around 15%. Who exactly is being lifted out of poverty?

i would guess the 20 million people who represent the difference between 15% of 195mm (1965 us pop) and 15% of 330mm (2015 us pop)

do you want names?

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:07 AM
how does one demonstrate that people are the ones who lift themselves out of poverty? How else would it occur?

By demonstrating that it's happening, that the poverty rate is going down and the cause is anti-poverty policies.

Otherwise all you're arguing is that good intentions go to heaven and not hell. IOW, wishful thinking. Not much on which to base painting the right as evil.

maineman
07-15-2016, 09:09 AM
the programs I listed are as much about nutrition as they are anything else.

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:10 AM
i would guess the 20 million people who represent the difference between 15% of 195mm (1965 us pop) and 15% of 330mm (2015 us pop)

do you want names?

Ah, so the number of people in poverty is increasing under anti-poverty programs. That's failure.

del
07-15-2016, 09:11 AM
Ah, so the number of people in poverty is increasing under anti-poverty programs. That's failure.

try not to be any more stupid than genetics dictate

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:12 AM
the programs I listed are as much about nutrition as they are anything else.


Right, but why are they needed? What do they do to raise people out of poverty to the point they can feed themselves and their children?


Remember, you're the one trying to show that the right is a bunch of uncaring bastards when it comes to babies born.

Maybe you could show that the right abandon their own children, take them out in the woods and leave them their, or just outright murder them. Good luck.

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:13 AM
try not to be any more stupid than genetics dictate


Was that supposed to resemble an argument?

maineman
07-15-2016, 09:17 AM
Right, but why are they needed? What do they do to raise people out of poverty to the point they can feed themselves and their children?


Remember, you're the one trying to show that the right is a bunch of uncaring bastards when it comes to babies born.

Maybe you could show that the right abandon their own children, take them out in the woods and leave them their, or just outright murder them. Good luck.

do you think if there are programs that provide nutrition to babies, and you cut those programs, those babies will get MORE food, or less food?

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:22 AM
do you think if there are programs that provide nutrition to babies, and you cut those programs, those babies will get MORE food, or less food?

No, but their are government policies, like getting out of the way, that would improve the economy, create jobs, etc.

Liberal welfare policies incentivize single mother families that have been shown to do harm to kids rising out of poverty. How does that show you care?

maineman
07-15-2016, 09:28 AM
No, but their are government policies, like getting out of the way, that would improve the economy, create jobs, etc.

Liberal welfare policies incentivize single mother families that have been shown to do harm to kids rising out of poverty. How does that show you care?

"no" was a non-responsive answer to my question. The acceptable responses are either "MORE food" or "LESS food".

I'll wait.

Chris
07-15-2016, 09:32 AM
"no" was a non-responsive answer to my question. The acceptable responses are either "MORE food" or "LESS food".

I'll wait.

You're the one making the claim the right doesn't care about born babies. What are you waiting on, I already called that BS.

maineman
07-15-2016, 09:53 AM
You're the one making the claim the right doesn't care about born babies. What are you waiting on, I already called that BS.

I asked a simple question. It really ought to be relatively simple to provide a simple answer. Here is the question again... give it a try:

do you think if there are programs that provide nutrition to babies, and you cut those programs, those babies will get MORE food, or LESS food?

Peter1469
07-15-2016, 09:57 AM
That is a distortion as well.

Untrue. She hated the unproductive. To her that included all minorities.

Chris
07-15-2016, 10:25 AM
I asked a simple question. It really ought to be relatively simple to provide a simple answer. Here is the question again... give it a try:

do you think if there are programs that provide nutrition to babies, and you cut those programs, those babies will get MORE food, or LESS food?


I answered your question.

So back to you defending your claim--eh, forget it, you would have could you have. Have a good day.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:34 AM
I don't know who that is

Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood - and she founded the organization for exactly the reason you cited.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:36 AM
you're lucky she's dead, then

Another vapid response from a coma patient. It's quite an accomplishment, considering your EKG.

It doesn't matter that she'd dead, you twit. What she started has done - and continues to do - the damage she wished would take place against blacks.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:37 AM
That's not accurate.


shhh

you can have accuracy or you can have entertainment

Vapid.

That's not accurate because ______________________.

That line there, brain pans? That's where you actually form and present an argument.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:38 AM
That's not accurate.


I didn't defend it. I put into context.

Didn't you just say..."Instead of just saying uh-huh, refute his comment factually."

You basically said "uh-huh".

Ironic, since your last post to which I responded was you saying 'nuh-uh'.

Tahuyaman
07-15-2016, 10:39 AM
Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood - and she founded the organization for exactly the reason you cited.


Here's some one of her stated views...


A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.


No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.


Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:46 AM
Sanger's quote was clearly a hypothetical, but brutally honest. Those of us alive today have no idea what life was like in the days before the medical advances we take for granted. Infant mortality was horrendous and, without birth control of any kind, families had way too many babies for them to properly be cared for.

Utter hyperbole. Society reflected a far better sense of personal accountability. There were many orders of magnitude fewer illegitimate children than at present. There are many orders of magnitude more broken families than there were then. You don't know WTF you're talking about, but it doesn't stop you farting out the same tired lies.


I love how pro-life righties just LOVE that little fetus until he's born... and then, they could absolutely give a $#@! about them or the problems their mothers have in raising them. NOT THEIR PROBLEM.... but the mother's pregnancy is certainly something they make their business.

$#@!ing disgusting.

What's fucking disgusting is a mental midget who cannot discern the real position of Conservatives. Righties protect the rights of the unborn because we recognize them as absolutely helpless and innocent. Histrionically claiming that Conservatives don't care after that is just asinine. Conservatives give more to charity than do liberals. You, it seems, only care if you are able to give OTHER people's money to causes which help, and not as much your own - else Conservatives wouldn't out-donate you.

Conservatives also recognize the damage which entitlements cause to propagate further societal distress - and irrefutable evidence of the truth of this is exactly the dysfunctions prominent in today's society.

You, however, are wholly inequipped to discern it, because you're utterly incompetent regarding human nature, and lack wisdom.

We don't make a mother's pregnancy our business. We make ending a human life without consent of that life our business.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:47 AM
What makes you say the right cares less about babies born than babies yet unborn?

Because he's able to parrot hyperbole without thought or reason.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:54 AM
Morality isn't exactly right and wrong. It's a system to which we can evaluate the extent to which something is right or wrong. There are plenty of instances of moral ambiguity.

Why does your ambiguity by necessity negate the presence of an absolute right and wrong? Why isn't moral ambiguity' merely an example of not KNOWING what the right or wrong thing absolutely is? Morality is a system by which we attempt to align our personal convictions as much as possible to what we BELIEVE is absolutely right, and absolutely wrong.

Subdermal
07-15-2016, 10:55 AM
Here's some one of her stated views...

Hey.

That's Progressive!

Tahuyaman
07-15-2016, 10:56 AM
But liberals think those quotes were taken out of context.

maineman
07-15-2016, 11:56 AM
Utter hyperbole. Society reflected a far better sense of personal accountability. There were many orders of magnitude fewer illegitimate children than at present. There are many orders of magnitude more broken families than there were then.

This is what Sanger wrote:


"The direct relationship between the size of the wage-earner's family and the death of children less than one year old has been revealed by a number of studies of the infant death rate. One of the clearest of these was that made by Arthur Geissler among miners and cited by Dr. Alfred Ploetz before the First International Eugenic Congress. [Footnote: Problems in Eugenics, London , 1913.] Taking 26,000 births from unselected marriages, and omitting families having one and two children, Geissler got this result:
Deaths During First Year.

1st born children 23%
2nd " " 20%
3rd " " 21%
4th " " 23%
5th " " 26%
6th " " 29%
7th " " 31%
8th " " 33%
9th " " 36%
10th " " 41%
11th " " 51%
12th " " 60%
Thus we see that the second and third children have a very good chance to live through the first year. Children arriving later have less and less chance, until the twelfth has hardly any chance at all to live twelve months. This does not complete the case, however, for those who care to go farther into the subject will find that many of those who live for a year die before they reach the age of five. Many, perhaps, will think it idle to go farther in demonstrating the immorality of large families, but since there is still an abundance of proof at hand, it may be offered for the sake of those who find difficulty in adjusting old-fashioned ideas to the facts. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. The same factors which create the terrible infant mortality rate, and which swell the death rate of children between the ages of one and five, operate even more extensively to lower the health rate of the surviving members. Moreover, the overcrowded homes of large families reared in poverty further contribute to this condition. Lack of medical attention is still another factor, so that the child who must struggle for health in competition with other members of a closely packed family has still great difficulties to meet after its poor constitution and malnutrition have been accounted for.

are you suggesting that her data or her conclusions are inaccurate?

maineman
07-15-2016, 12:53 PM
I answered your question.

So back to you defending your claim--eh, forget it, you would have could you have. Have a good day.

which post did you tell me whether babies got more or less food when nutrition programs are cut?

I must have missed it.

Chris
07-15-2016, 01:01 PM
which post did you tell me whether babies got more or less food when nutrition programs are cut?

I must have missed it.

But you're having a good day, I trust.

maineman
07-15-2016, 01:23 PM
my wife is having one of her "ladies who lunch" parties and I get to bartend...so yeah... a pretty nice day indeed.

Green Arrow
07-15-2016, 03:59 PM
I've read some of her stuff today. Her views can't be defended.

Sure they can.

You will disagree, but they can still be defended.

Tahuyaman
07-15-2016, 10:41 PM
Do people really think children will die in the streets if government doesn't feed them?

Tahuyaman
07-15-2016, 10:42 PM
Sure they can.

You will disagree, but they can still be defended.

ok. Her views can't be defended sensibly.

If you have no conscience you can defend anything.

Green Arrow
07-15-2016, 10:43 PM
ok. Her views can't be defended sensibly.

If you have no conscience you can defend anything.

They can be defended sensibly. You disagree, but that doesn't make it not sensible.

Green Arrow
07-15-2016, 10:44 PM
When Democrats threw a hissy fit about Andrew Jackson on the $20, conservatives defended Jackson with the argument that he lived in a different time and can't be judged by modern morals.

For some reason, those same conservatives don't apply the same logic to people they disagree with, like Margaret Sanger.

Tahuyaman
07-16-2016, 09:13 AM
They can be defended sensibly. You disagree, but that doesn't make it not sensible.


Geonocidal ideas can can not be defended in a sensible manner.

Tahuyaman
07-16-2016, 09:15 AM
When Democrats threw a hissy fit about Andrew Jackson on the $20, conservatives defended Jackson with the argument that he lived in a different time and can't be judged by modern morals.

For some reason, those same conservatives don't apply the same logic to people they disagree with, like Margaret Sanger.

Lol......

Chris
07-16-2016, 09:21 AM
Hell, Sanger had good intentions.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 09:23 AM
Hell, Sanger had good intentions.

Really? Kill the darkies?

She was evil.

Tahuyaman
07-16-2016, 09:27 AM
Hell, Sanger had good intentions.

Some said the same thing about Stalin.

Chris
07-16-2016, 09:32 AM
Some said the same thing about Stalin.

Indeed. It's like gun control, people want something done, anything, and they have good intentions. Doesn't mean the outcome will be good. In fact, it will be predictably bad.

Chris
07-16-2016, 09:34 AM
Really? Kill the darkies?

She was evil.

I'm alluding to the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

maineman
07-16-2016, 09:57 AM
Indeed. It's like gun control, people want something done, anything, and they have good intentions. Doesn't mean the outcome will be good. In fact, it will be predictably bad.

See... I don't think that Sanger was inherently evil. I think she DID have good intentions. Stalin, on the other hand, was evil to the bone, imho.

Green Arrow
07-16-2016, 11:26 AM
Geonocidal ideas can can not be defended in a sensible manner.

It isn't genocide.

AZ Jim
07-16-2016, 11:34 AM
my wife is having one of her "ladies who lunch" parties and I get to bartend...so yeah... a pretty nice day indeed.Need a bar back?

AZ Jim
07-16-2016, 11:40 AM
I love the "right to life" fanatics who want every pregnancy to end in a live birth rather than a safe abortion, but want to abolish the programs that assist the single mother who has a child but no means of support or health care for her baby. Can you say hypocrites?

Chris
07-16-2016, 11:46 AM
I love the "right to life" fanatics who want every pregnancy to end in a live birth rather than a safe abortion, but want to abolish the programs that assist the single mother who has a child but no means of support or health care for her baby. Can you say hypocrites?

No, because those programs keep people in poverty. They incentivize single mother families--it pays better than being married to a man who provides a father to the children. Studies reflect the damage of the one parent – fatherless family (http://www.commdiginews.com/life/studies-reflect-the-damage-of-the-one-parent-fatherless-family-17573/#6xaIgII8iFGz0Hib.99).

But, alas, those programs have good intentions.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 02:58 PM
See... I don't think that Sanger was inherently evil. I think she DID have good intentions. Stalin, on the other hand, was evil to the bone, imho.

Wanting less darkies was a good idea?

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 03:00 PM
Wanting less darkies was a good idea?


http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/18/carsons-claim-that-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-to-control-that-population/

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 03:01 PM
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2015/oct/05/ben-carson/did-margaret-sanger-believe-african-americans-shou/

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/18/carsons-claim-that-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-to-control-that-population/

She was a ghoul.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 03:02 PM
She was a ghoul.

...and the Pyramids were grain silos.

Don't bother reading the links. I know you disregard facts that counter your perception.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 03:04 PM
...and the Pyramids were grain silos.

Don't bother reading the links. I know you disregard facts that counter your perception.

I have seen the claims for and against. Her own words are damning.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 03:05 PM
The great pyramid was a power source.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 03:05 PM
I have seen the claims for and against. Her own words are damning.

Out of context, yes.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 03:07 PM
Out of context, yes.

Yes, the pro-abort crowd needs to rehab her so they don't look like ghouls as well.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 03:07 PM
Yes, the pro-abort crowd needs to rehab her so they don't look like ghouls as well.

Oh, OK...

We just do what our globalist masters tell us to do. Usually by fax.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 03:11 PM
Oh, OK...

We just do what our globalist masters tell us to do. Usually by fax.

They are on board with the systematic murder of fetuses.

Oboe
07-16-2016, 04:48 PM
Obama the "man".

15212

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 04:49 PM
Is that from the gay bath houses in Chicago?

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Oboe
07-16-2016, 04:50 PM
15213

Oboe
07-16-2016, 04:53 PM
They are on board with the systematic murder of fetuses.

Look what Texas aborted.

15215

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 04:54 PM
I thought the trailer trash Barbie covered that.

Oboe
07-16-2016, 04:55 PM
Maybe, but that image was put out for Wendy Davis.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 04:57 PM
Is that from the gay bath houses in Chicago?

Not that there is anything wrong with that.


Why would you thank a post like that?

Oboe
07-16-2016, 05:01 PM
Why would you thank a post like that?

It's just common sense.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 05:03 PM
It's just common sense.

It's not. It's juvenile and bigoted.

I wasn't surprised you posted it. Just a little disappointed that Peter thanked it.

Oboe
07-16-2016, 05:05 PM
Common sense eludes you.

Common Sense
07-16-2016, 05:06 PM
Common sense eludes you.

Common decency eludes you.

Tahuyaman
07-16-2016, 05:51 PM
It isn't genocide.

really? Kill blacks is not genocidal?

It's amazing what the pro abortion crowd will accept.

Peter1469
07-16-2016, 05:59 PM
Amazing. The hard left calls the right racists. Yet the right advocates for the 50% of blacks that get flushed down the toilet.

And the "media" takes the left's side.

Oboe
07-16-2016, 06:01 PM
The media have been liars and twisters for a very long time.