Just kidding, actually a liberal threw the incendiary device at an elderly woman who was holding a vigil at a medical center that suppled the public with abortions
You can read more here: http://www.kaj18.com/news/incendiary-device-thrown-at-kalispell-vigil-participants/
So, discuss how liberals love to do crazy things like throw Molotov cocktails at elderly people because they don’t like actual debate.
Hypocrisy.
Pure hypocrisy.
Liberals would rather kill an innocent baby, yet fight to keep a convicted murderer on death row alive.
They would prefer to be pro-choice on matters, except when it comes to mandating health care. You MUST buy it.
They would insist on toning down the vitriol and incendiary rhetoric, but have no problem telling people to “get in the faces of the adversaries.”
They are the party of understanding and compassion, yet are bold enough to tell police when they act stupidly, that not all of us can be wise Latinas, and that all white people against their cause are nothing but a bunch of racist, red-neck, cracker, gun-toating, Klansmen.
Their choice for Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat.
Their choice for Surgeon General is overweight.
They insist that armed members of the Black Panther Party stationed at voting places are nothing to worry about.
They held a conference about Global Warming during a horrible blizzard.
So sad if this was a pro-lifer doing the same to an abortion clinic it would be on the loop in all the news channel.
Rest assured Maximus there time will come, they are pushing the limit and the tipping point is coming where we finally push back. They are only acting as so because they are losing and they know it. They are going nuclear, just like in rules for radicals.
Funny, the article neither mentioned a “pro-lifer” nor a “liberal”.
Funny, who else would do it?
War is murder! It should be illegal to go to war because people die!.. It should be illegal to have abortions because people die… Wait… What did I just do there?
It’s all the fucking same to me I really don’t give a flying mother fuck if somebody wants to kill her premature baby… especially while it is still in its parasitic stage of development(after which I can amuse an intellectual debate on the legality of the abortion).
So go ahead and fight for your right to kill all the people you want based on their disagreeing with your nations policy(a policy based on making them rich - and via proxy, you rich[er]) but god forbid a women kills in the name of preserving her economic stability… I forgot every man out here in this world is the harbinger of all moral truth.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Funny, who else would do it?[/quote]
I dont know and neither do you.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
War is murder! It should be illegal to go to war because people die!.. It should be illegal to have abortions because people die… Wait… What did I just do there?
It’s all the fucking same to me I really don’t give a flying mother fuck if somebody wants to kill her premature baby… especially while it is still in its parasitic stage of development(after which I can amuse an intellectual debate on the legality of the abortion).
So go ahead and fight for your right to kill all the people you want based on their disagreeing with your nations policy(a policy based on making them rich - and via proxy, you rich[er]) but god forbid a women kills in the name of preserving her economic stability… I forgot every man out here in this world is the harbinger of all moral truth. [/quote]
War is almost never ordered by soldiers, but some big-whig pricks who will never see a battle field. Trust me, have some of those officers to be the first to land in a hot zone, and you will see alot less wars going on. Soldiers are told what to do, unfortunately by know-nothing commanders with less than mediocre intel.
Then you would not have a problem killing a murdered on Death Row, right? Just saying, if you’re ok with killing a fetus, don’t bitch when we needle mass murderers.
A woman preserving her economic stability? So if I beat you to a pulp to take your wallet, I am ok because I am “preserving my economic stability?” Oh and hey, that’s not even murder even. According to your logic, every robber/thief/carjacker should be walking free all in the name of “preserving their economic stability.”
Our nation’s policy? Dude, why are you even here? You seem to hate this country, then why don’t you take the first thing smoking out of Newark or JFK the fuck on out of here if it’s so bad? No place is perfect, but I would sure as fuck be here more than anywhere else in the world.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
War is murder! It should be illegal to go to war because people die!.. It should be illegal to have abortions because people die… Wait… What did I just do there?
It’s all the fucking same to me I really don’t give a flying mother fuck if somebody wants to kill her premature baby… especially while it is still in its parasitic stage of development(after which I can amuse an intellectual debate on the legality of the abortion).
So go ahead and fight for your right to kill all the people you want based on their disagreeing with your nations policy(a policy based on making them rich - and via proxy, you rich[er]) but god forbid a women kills in the name of preserving her economic stability… I forgot every man out here in this world is the harbinger of all moral truth. [/quote]
War is almost never ordered by soldiers, but some big-whig pricks who will never see a battle field. Trust me, have some of those officers to be the first to land in a hot zone, and you will see alot less wars going on. Soldiers are told what to do, unfortunately by know-nothing commanders with less than mediocre intel.
Then you would not have a problem killing a murdered on Death Row, right? Just saying, if you’re ok with killing a fetus, don’t bitch when we needle mass murderers.
A woman preserving her economic stability? So if I beat you to a pulp to take your wallet, I am ok because I am “preserving my economic stability?” Oh and hey, that’s not even murder even. According to your logic, every robber/thief/carjacker should be walking free all in the name of “preserving their economic stability.”
Our nation’s policy? Dude, why are you even here? You seem to hate this country, then why don’t you take the first thing smoking out of Newark or JFK the fuck on out of here if it’s so bad? No place is perfect, but I would sure as fuck be here more than anywhere else in the world. [/quote]
Just put him on ignore, it calms the blood pressure. What he doesn’t realise is that most true blue Conservatives aren’t interested in the war (besides ending it), there is no declaration of war, we shouldn’t be in those countries.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
War is murder! It should be illegal to go to war because people die!.. It should be illegal to have abortions because people die… Wait… What did I just do there?
It’s all the fucking same to me I really don’t give a flying mother fuck if somebody wants to kill her premature baby… especially while it is still in its parasitic stage of development(after which I can amuse an intellectual debate on the legality of the abortion).
So go ahead and fight for your right to kill all the people you want based on their disagreeing with your nations policy(a policy based on making them rich - and via proxy, you rich[er]) but god forbid a women kills in the name of preserving her economic stability… I forgot every man out here in this world is the harbinger of all moral truth. [/quote]
War is almost never ordered by soldiers, but some big-whig pricks who will never see a battle field. Trust me, have some of those officers to be the first to land in a hot zone, and you will see alot less wars going on. Soldiers are told what to do, unfortunately by know-nothing commanders with less than mediocre intel.
Then you would not have a problem killing a murdered on Death Row, right? Just saying, if you’re ok with killing a fetus, don’t bitch when we needle mass murderers.
A woman preserving her economic stability? So if I beat you to a pulp to take your wallet, I am ok because I am “preserving my economic stability?” Oh and hey, that’s not even murder even. According to your logic, every robber/thief/carjacker should be walking free all in the name of “preserving their economic stability.”
Our nation’s policy? Dude, why are you even here? You seem to hate this country, then why don’t you take the first thing smoking out of Newark or JFK the fuck on out of here if it’s so bad? No place is perfect, but I would sure as fuck be here more than anywhere else in the world. [/quote]
Just put him on ignore, it calms the blood pressure. What he doesn’t realise is that most true blue Conservatives aren’t interested in the war (besides ending it), there is no declaration of war, we shouldn’t be in those countries.[/quote]
Amen brother, could not be said any better.
There was a character who went around these parts with your exact same logic, his name was ryan q mcgunther, or something. Your logic FAILS for the same two reasons: one - the baby is the exact same species as the mother, the embryo is NOT a parasite. Two - The embryo is where nature intended, no where else.
Learn a lil’ wee bit o’ science before you throw some terms around. Or at least understand the definitions.
He’s just jelly he is no longer a parasite.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
There was a character who went around these parts with your exact same logic, his name was ryan q mcgunther, or something. Your logic FAILS for the same two reasons: one - the baby is the exact same species as the mother, the embryo is NOT a parasite. Two - The embryo is where nature intended, no where else.
Learn a lil’ wee bit o’ science before you throw some terms around. Or at least understand the definitions.
[/quote]
If the fetus cannot survive on its own(separate from its mothers womb) then it is a parasite by definition.
You implied that you knew the definition of parasite but then you demonstrated clearly that you don’t so I’ll copy paste you a definition from google search to save you further embarrassment.
“an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A woman preserving her economic stability? So if I beat you to a pulp to take your wallet, I am ok because I am “preserving my economic stability?” Oh and hey, that’s not even murder even. According to your logic, every robber/thief/carjacker should be walking free all in the name of “preserving their economic stability.” [/quote]
…Legally speaking a women removing a parasite from her own body is far different from a women taking another persons property… Are you being serious with these comparisons or is this a joke?
Furthermore you seem to have gotten really thrown off by the comments on war… They were only to provoke thought on the subject of life and to provoke the question “When does man find it morally acceptable to take life and why?” or something along those lines.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
A woman preserving her economic stability? So if I beat you to a pulp to take your wallet, I am ok because I am “preserving my economic stability?” Oh and hey, that’s not even murder even. According to your logic, every robber/thief/carjacker should be walking free all in the name of “preserving their economic stability.” [/quote]
…Legally speaking a women removing a parasite from her own body is far different from a women taking another persons property… Are you being serious with these comparisons or is this a joke?
Furthermore you seem to have gotten really thrown off by the comments on war… They were only to provoke thought on the subject of life and to provoke the question “When does man find it morally acceptable to take life and why?” or something along those lines. [/quote]
The reasons for a woman removing “a parasite” from her body and a thief stealing from you are the same, so clearly you have demonstrated that you do not know what the definition of the taking of one’s property means. Both “the parasite” and the wallet are belongings to the person, and the removal of both or either one is one of monetary intent, what exactly did you think you were proving here?
[quote]Deorum wrote:
“an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host”
[/quote]
Considering the biological purpose of a living organism is to pass on their genes, the mother scientifically benefits from the child. The child is not a parasite.
Your same argument can be said of on infant so, if you aren’t a hypocrite, you would have to be in favor of women having the choice to just leave infants to die.
Abortion is not simply the removal of the baby. An abortion is specifically designed to kill the baby in the process. It isn’t collateral damage that the human dies, it is part of the intent.
I guess elderly, handicapped, disabled, impaired, are all parasites too.
Watch out people, he used google. Next he will quote for me some wiki! OMG I am so scared! Eeek . . . .
I will hold your hand because you lack the ability to form your own, individual thoughts. A child/embryo is unable to survive on their own for many, many years. Should mothers around the world be allowed to abandon children at any stage of development? The answer is a resounding NO. Why is it ok to kill a child during development, namely in the embryo stage?
Even with your definition it falls short because you ASSUME they speak of the same species. Interesting how you are an ass because of your thought process. Medicine tells you a parasite is a different species.
This can be made much easier, define for me: the unborn -
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
There was a character who went around these parts with your exact same logic, his name was ryan q mcgunther, or something. Your logic FAILS for the same two reasons: one - the baby is the exact same species as the mother, the embryo is NOT a parasite. Two - The embryo is where nature intended, no where else.
Learn a lil’ wee bit o’ science before you throw some terms around. Or at least understand the definitions.
[/quote]
If the fetus cannot survive on its own(separate from its mothers womb) then it is a parasite by definition.
You implied that you knew the definition of parasite but then you demonstrated clearly that you don’t so I’ll copy paste you a definition from google search to save you further embarrassment.
“an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host”
[/quote]
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I guess elderly, handicapped, disabled, impaired, are all parasites too. [/quote]
They can be in some senses of the word…
But I wouldn’t say so… …