Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't think that word "indoctrination" means what you think it means

And Im sure I don't have to explain to you the difference between this and civil disobedience.

I like this new side of you where you actually reveal the type of person you really are rather than the politically correct version you pretend to be. The real you looks at a typical southern white guy and thinks " trailer trash hillbilly "


Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned

[.blank cd]

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learnedexactly. Lets not use the term indoctrination in place of education in this case, cool?

[Sinfix_15]

exactly. Lets not use the term indoctrination in place of education in this case, cool?

Sounds like maybe you need to be educated.

[.blank cd]

Sounds like maybe you need to be educated.

Don't worry bout that. I got that part covered. I'm not the one who thinks gun control is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights.

[David88vert]

exactly. Lets not use the term indoctrination in place of education in this case, cool?

Where are the young kids being educated to think critically concerning the shirt in question? I didn't see anything to suggest that they are being taught why they shouldn't wear it, only that it was not allowed. If they aren't, then the term indoctrination could be used, could it not?

[Sinfix_15]

Don't worry bout that. I got that part covered. I'm not the one who thinks gun control is an infringement on 2nd amendment rights.


Nothing new here..... another delusional liberal radical thinks he's more intelligent than the rest of the world. Get in line......

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7_rnW4AgFwA/T8jGIxpjShI/AAAAAAAAC_w/O9bu5stjWiU/s1600/forward.jpg#Sheep%20running%20off%20cliff%20gif%20 500x424

[.blank cd]

Where are the young kids being educated to think critically concerning the shirt in question? I didn't see anything to suggest that they are being taught why they shouldn't wear it, only that it was not allowed. If they aren't, then the term indoctrination could be used, could it not?

It's not really the schools place to teach kids how to dress, is it? This is a failure on the parents behalf.

[Sinfix_15]

It's not really the schools place to teach kids how to dress, is it? This is a failure on the parents behalf.

The west virginia state flag has guns crossed on it. That particular high school has a statue outside of it of someone holding a rifle. Pardon me if i would question my son wearing a 2nd amendment shirt being appropriate.

Only to you delusional bleeding heart liberals are guns an abnormality in society.

[Sinfix_15]

should a kid be suspended for wearing a support Obama shirt?

[David88vert]

It's not really the schools place to teach kids how to dress, is it? This is a failure on the parents behalf.

I agree that it is the parent's place. It's sad that the school even has to address it.
That point we agree on.

If the school isn't teaching about it though, in regards to this case, then technically, it does fall under indoctrination. I'm not making an argument that indoctrination is good or bad, just that technically this could fall under that term in this case, and cases that are similar where teaching is not implemented along with the practice.

[.blank cd]

If the school isn't teaching about it though, in regards to this case, then technically, it does fall under indoctrination. I'm not making an argument that indoctrination is good or bad, just that technically this could fall under that term in this case, and cases that are similar where teaching is not implemented along with the practice.The school shouldn't be teaching the kids what to wear and what not to wear at all. The rules are in place, its my job as a parent to see that he follows them. I wouldn't want my son wearing my political ideologies on his back either. If he wants the shirt, fine, but he doesn't wear it to school. Dress like someone who's in school to learn.

If you want to use the word indoctrination, the parents indoctrinated him to think its ok to wear a sleeveless tshirt with guns and a political ideology on the front of it to school.

[.blank cd]

should a kid be suspended for wearing a support Obama shirt?

Yes. Especially if he wants to fight administrators about it.

[David88vert]

The school shouldn't be teaching the kids what to wear and what not to wear at all. The rules are in place, its my job as a parent to see that he follows them. I wouldn't want my son wearing my political ideologies on his back either. If he wants the shirt, fine, but he doesn't wear it to school. Dress like someone who's in school to learn.

If you want to use the word indoctrination, the parents indoctrinated him to think its ok to wear a sleeveless tshirt with guns and a political ideology on the front of it to school.

I don't disagree with you on this.

Just remember though - if a kid is wearing an anarchy, Jesus, or "gay rights" t-shirt, the same rules should apply.
Gay Ohio Student Sues Over Right to Wear T-Shirt - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/gay-ohio-student-sues-over-right-to-wear-t-shirt/)
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-arkansas-school-gay-supportive-t-shirts-don-t-merit-suspending-students
Michigan School Reverses Student's Suspension For Wearing ""Anarchy"" T-Shirt | American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/michigan-school-reverses-students-suspension-wearing-anarchy-t-shirt)
Canadian Student Suspended for Wearing Jesus T-Shirt (http://www.christianpost.com/news/canadian-student-suspended-for-wearing-jesus-t-shirt-74404/)

It's really sad that administrators are more concerned about what the kid is wearing, rather than what he is learning.

[Elbow]

The media is to blame for false perception over reality. There's nothing unusual about someone walking down a remote road with a rifle. If he was wearing camo with a 12gauge on his back, nobody would have noticed. The type of rifle is what intimidates people. The perception of said rifle is far from the reality of it.

That guy getting stopped because of his appearance is about the same as a black guy getting stopped for wearing a backwards hat. Neither are in violation of any law, but the perception is misleading.

http://www.dreamstime.com/hunter-with-rifle-gun-thumb22547203.jpg

BS.

It has nothing to do with the type of gun.

[Sinfix_15]

BS.

It has nothing to do with the type of gun.


So you think the same thing will happen if i walk down a country road with my AR15 as it would with my shotgun?

I may test this out and see how it works.

[Sinfix_15]

CNBC's "America's Gun: The Rise of the AR-15" Premieres on Thursday, April 25th at 10PM ET/PT (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100660749?par=ft)

[Echonova]

exactly. Lets not use the term indoctrination in place of education in this case, cool?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-eVF_G_p-Y

[Elbow]

So you think the same thing will happen if i walk down a country road with my AR15 as it would with my shotgun?

I may test this out and see how it works.

Yes, I truly do.

If someone sees you that's clueless about guns a gun is a gun, if you can differentiate an AR and a shotgun then I still don't see why it matters because once again a gun is a gun.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes, I truly do.

If someone sees you that's clueless about guns a gun is a gun, if you can differentiate an AR and a shotgun then I still don't see why it matters because once again a gun is a gun.

i agree.... but unfortunately that isnt the way it is.


Someone sees a shotgun and they think
http://cdn.realscreen.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Duck-Dynasty-1-622x414.jpg?9707a5


Someone sees an AR15 they think
http://histoireengagee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Irish-300x243.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

I think when you register your car you should have to list the path your vehicle travels routinely and whenever you go beyond that path you should have to get a permit. They should also use the progressive snapshot to monitor the driving behavior of all drivers and maybe one day be able to remotely limit a car's ability or shut it off if the driver does something that warrants suspicion or wonders off his path. it would save lives and assist the police in tracking fugitives.

[Elbow]

i agree.... but unfortunately that isnt the way it is.


Someone sees a shotgun and they think
http://cdn.realscreen.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Duck-Dynasty-1-622x414.jpg?9707a5


Someone sees an AR15 they think
http://histoireengagee.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Irish-300x243.jpg

...which photo is suppose to be scarier? :lmfao:

[Sinfix_15]

...which photo is suppose to be scarier? :lmfao:

lol..

[Sinfix_15]

Liberal media blasts model Karolina Kurkova for wearing gun print dress (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/04/23/liberal-media-blasts-model-karolina-kurkova-for-wearing-gun-print-dress/)

[Sinfix_15]

HURT: Boston on wrong side of gun-control debate - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/hurt-boston-wrong-side-gun-control-debate/#.UXhK6jOP_34.twitter)

[Sinfix_15]

Tremble in fear, gun-rights advocates! (http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/25/Tremble-in-fear-gun-rights-advocates?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[Sinfix_15]

Plan B? Biden meeting with gun control activists today at the White House | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2528109#.UXpK-iCR2pQ.twitter)

[.blank cd]

http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/Homeless-man-shot-in-hunt-for-stolen-iPad-20130430?utm_source=feedly

[.blank cd]

Ahh shit. Didnt realize that was in S. Africa.

[Sinfix_15]

Ahh shit. Didnt realize that was in S. Africa.

imagine if South Africa adopted some of Obama's gun control policies.... it could have prevented something like this from ever happening.



























"In South Africa, owning a gun is conditional on a competency test and several other factors, including background checking of the applicant, inspection of an owner's premises, and licensing of the weapon by the police introduced in July 2004. The process is currently undergoing review,[1] as the police are at present, not able to adequately or within reasonable time, process either competency certification, new licenses or renewal of existing licenses. Minimum waiting period frequently exceeds 2 years from date of application"

[Sinfix_15]

Is there anything a gun cant fix?????

Brain Wound Eliminates Man's Mental Illness - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/25/us/brain-wound-eliminates-man-s-mental-illness.html)

[.blank cd]

Ouch!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312663/Bob-Davis-comments-Outrage-radio-host-tells-Sandy-Hook-victims-families-to-hell-infringing-gun-rights.html

[Sinfix_15]

Ouch!

Bob Davis comments: Outrage as radio host tells Sandy Hook victims' families to 'go to hell' for infringing on his gun rights | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312663/Bob-Davis-comments-Outrage-radio-host-tells-Sandy-Hook-victims-families-to-hell-infringing-gun-rights.html)

I kinda agree with where he's coming from, but i would chose to be more tactful in how i said it. I am tired of these victims being paraded around on the gun control campaign too..... but i also realize that these are grieving families that are being manipulated by politicians. I would carefully express to those victims that the actions of criminals should not have an effect on my rights as a law abiding citizen. Given the chance to speak to Obama, Piers Morgan or any of the other gun control pushers........ i would tell them to suck a dick. Unfortunately..... most of those liberal democrats, Obama especially.... would probably just think to themselves "been there, done that"

[Sinfix_15]

'Grab this gun before Obama does!': Rep. Stockman raffling off AR-15 - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/grab-gun-obama-does-rep-stockman-raffling-ar-15/)

[.blank cd]

Yeah. We should have voted for Romney.

[David88vert]

Yeah. We should have voted for Romney.

Romney would not have been without issues. It would just be a different set of problems with him. Incidents such as Newtown, Aurora, Benghazi, and Boston still would have occurred, the Administrations responses may have differed.

[Sinfix_15]

Yeah. We should have voted for Romney.

Most intelligent thing you have ever typed.

[Sinfix_15]

Kutztown University to allow guns on campus - CBS 21 News - Breaking news, sports and weather for the Harrisburg -York -Lancaster -Lebanon Pennsylvania area (http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story/Kutztown-University-to-allow-guns-on-campus/U89k5B4O-UiZjbsHt5eAmA.cspx)

[.blank cd]

Romney would not have been without issues. It would just be a different set of problems with him. Incidents such as Newtown, Aurora, Benghazi, and Boston still would have occurred, the Administrations responses may have differed.

You're right. All that would have happened. And you're right. The administrations responses might have differed some. I'd be more interested in the overall public reaction to those responses if Romney was in office. LOL

[.blank cd]

Most intelligent thing you have ever typed.

LMAO. More intelligent that you know.

[David88vert]

You're right. All that would have happened. And you're right. The administrations responses might have differed some. I'd be more interested in the overall public reaction to those responses if Romney was in office. LOL

It wouldn't have mattered. You seem to believe that people's fearful reactions should mean that we should make changes to the system.

[.blank cd]

It wouldn't have mattered. You seem to believe that people's fearful reactions should mean that we should make changes to the system.

What do you believe would have been different about a Romney administration response to some of those events, you can summarize if you want...

[David88vert]

What do you believe would have been different about a Romney administration response to some of those events, you can summarize if you want...

Condemnation of the people committing the acts, rather than calling for a ban on the tools used.

[.blank cd]

Condemnation of the people committing the acts, rather than calling for a ban on the tools used.

Ok. So you believe Romney, like Obama, would have condemned the people committing the acts. What would Romney have done different?

[David88vert]

Ok. So you believe Romney, like Obama, would have condemned the people committing the acts. What would Romney have done different?

Anything regarding his possible Presidency is pure speculation, but I would venture that he probably would not have supported Feinstein's bill to the same degree as Obama has. He may have proposed other bills, such as mental health proposals, but we will never know, and there is no benefit to trying to "armchair quarterback" from that view at this point in time.

[.blank cd]

Anything regarding his possible Presidency is pure speculation, but I would venture that he probably would not have supported Feinstein's bill to the same degree as Obama has. He may have proposed other bills, such as mental health proposals, but we will never know, and there is no benefit to trying to "armchair quarterback" from that view at this point in time.I initiated the speculation. Quarterback!

You don't think he would have supported Feinsteins bill, or something similar to it?

[David88vert]

I initiated the speculation. Quarterback!

You don't think he would have supported Feinsteins bill, or something similar to it?

I simply speculate that he would not have supported Feinstein's bill, as it was written, to the same extent that Obama pushed it daily, and was upset when it failed to gain enough Democrat votes to pass through the Senate.

The reason that it does not matter is because Romney is not the President, and Obama is the President. We have to work with what we have.

[.blank cd]

I simply speculate that he would not have supported Feinstein's bill, as it was written, to the same extent that Obama pushed it daily, and was upset when it failed to gain enough Democrat votes to pass through the Senate.His governance record seems to suggest that he might have.

So if either administration would have supported some iteration of an assault weapons ban, it is foolish to pretend that only Obama is some kind of evil gun grabbing dictator and that there isn't something more to a gun ban that you might be turning a blinder to because you have some kind of idealogical grudge.


The reason that it does not matter is because Romney is not the President, and Obama is the President. We have to work with what we have.My thoughts exactly

[David88vert]

His governance record seems to suggest that he might have.

So if either administration would have supported some iteration of an assault weapons ban, it is foolish to pretend that only Obama is some kind of evil gun grabbing dictator and that there isn't something more to a gun ban that you might be turning a blinder to because you have some kind of idealogical grudge.

My thoughts exactly

I am not saying that Romney would have supported additional gun regulations.
His political position does not currently support Feinstein's proposal.

"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right." - Romney, Jan 7, 2008, The Washington Post

"Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country, to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? Good schools, to give people the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids." - Romney, Second Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 16, 2012

[.blank cd]

"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right." - Romney, Jan 7, 2008, The Washington Post

"Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We of course don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country, to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? Good schools, to give people the hope and opportunity they deserve, and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids." - Romney, Second Obama-Romney 2012 debate , Oct 16, 2012

Me and Romney it seems have similar stances on gun control.

[David88vert]

Me and Romney it seems have similar stances on gun control.

"Welcome to the Republican Party." - Sinfix



(quote made up by me)

[.blank cd]

"Welcome to the Republican Party." - Sinfix



(quote made up by me)

Obama invited me. Seems like they gave him a blue tie though instead if a red one.

[David88vert]

Obama invited me. Seems like they gave him a blue tie though instead if a red one.

Obama wore a blue tie in the debates. Romney wore the red tie.

[.blank cd]

Obama wore a blue tie in the debates. Romney wore the red tie.

So someone must have thought he was a democrat and gave him a blue tie.

Obama and I have similar stances on gun control as well.

[David88vert]

Obama and I have similar stances on gun control as well.

We know that.

[.blank cd]

So then if me, Romney, and Obama all have similar stances on gun control, what do you think Im getting at?

[David88vert]

So then if me, Romney, and Obama all have similar stances on gun control, what do you think Im getting at?

What you are getting at is a fallacy contrived in your head. They only have similar stances in your mind. Obama made it very clear that he wants to increase restrictions on the firearms that you can purchase through dealers new, and Romney has not taken that position.

[.blank cd]

What you are getting at is a fallacy contrived in your head. They only have similar stances in your mind. Obama made it very clear that he wants to increase restrictions on the firearms that you can purchase through dealers new, and Romney has not taken that position.

Except that you said he did, and he did, in fact, pass these restrictions. So, unless there's another governor mitt Romney of Mass. that no one knows about but you, I suppose it isn't me who made up things now, is it?

[David88vert]

Except that you said he did, and he did, in fact, pass these restrictions. So, unless there's another governor mitt Romney of Mass. that no one knows about but you, I suppose it isn't me who made up things now, is it?

Romney did not support Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. Please show me where he did.

[.blank cd]

Romney did not support Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban. Please show me where he did.

What did I say?

On the speculatory topic:

"You dont think he would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it?"

Is that what you want me to show you? Something similar to Feinstein's bill that he supported before? Just trying to clarify what you want to see so I can post what you want to see, I don't want you backpedaling and saying "no I didn't say that"

[David88vert]

What did I say?

On the speculatory topic:

"You dont think he would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it?"

Is that what you want me to show you? Something similar to Feinstein's bill that he supported before? Just trying to clarify what you want to see so I can post what you want to see, I don't want you backpedaling and saying "no I didn't say that"

Show where he said that he supports Feinstein's submitted version of the 2013 Assault Weapons Bill. Obama clearly stated that he supported it and stumped for it. Where did Romney state that same support for the bill?

You are the one that tends to backpedal and dance around trying to use technicalities when you misstate something.

[Sinfix_15]

You're right. All that would have happened. And you're right. The administrations responses might have differed some. I'd be more interested in the overall public reaction to those responses if Romney was in office. LOL

Ya, it be funny see how dem crackers act when dey aint got a black man to blame fer everything. Damn crackers just wanna keep the black man down. Dey cant stand see Obama be president.


Prob has nothing at all to do with the relentless tax increases and sheer disregard for the constitution or american values.

[.blank cd]

Show where he said that he supports Feinstein's submitted version of the 2013 Assault Weapons Bill. Obama clearly stated that he supported it and stumped for it. Where did Romney state that same support for the bill?

You are the one that tends to backpedal and dance around trying to use technicalities when you misstate something.Didn't misstate anything. You're drawing a conclusion off of something I didn't say already. Lol. That didnt take long at all. That is what a straw man is if you're taking notes.

I said: DO YOU THINK Romney would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it. I DID NOT SAY Romney indeed supported Feinstein's bill. Romney DID support, and signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004.

The problem is you have a problem with drawing your own conclusions based on statements or positions that dont exist. I'm not dancing around technicalities, and there is text proof of this. Now, stop the backpedaling. I'm tired of calling you out on it.

[David88vert]

Didn't misstate anything. You're drawing a conclusion off of something I didn't say already. Lol. That didnt take long at all. That is what a straw man is if you're taking notes.

I said: DO YOU THINK Romney would have supported Feinsteins bill or something similar to it. I DID NOT SAY Romney indeed supported Feinstein's bill. Romney DID support, and signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004.

The problem is you have a problem with drawing your own conclusions based on statements or positions that dont exist. I'm not dancing around technicalities, and there is text proof of this. Now, stop the backpedaling. I'm tired of calling you out on it.

Hello, I have not backpedalled any. Nor have you been able to nullify even one point that I have stated. YOU asked me to clarify my what needed to be stated, and I did just that. You are the one who keeps getting wrapped up with tangents about hypothetical situations. The fact is that the Mass. 2004 bill is not the same as Feinstein's bill. This fact obviously has escaped your attention and comprehension.


Romney was in support of the 1994 ban back in 2004, but note that when he sign Mass. ban in 2004, that was with the support of his states pro-gun lobby, as they got other concessions that they wanted.

Since 2008, Romney has stated clearly that he does not support a federal ban on assault weapons.

His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."

During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"

Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."

The only straw man argument is YOUR hypothetical situations, which are detached from reality, but then again, so are you, so we should expect that. Your hypothetical situation is what does not exist. My reality is that Romney did not support the 2013 Feinstein bill, and stated clearly that he was not in support of it.

You need to learn to have the facts on your side before you try to call someone out and utterly and completely fail.

[.blank cd]

Hello, I have not backpedalled any. Nor have you been able to nullify even one point that I have stated. YOU asked me to clarify my what needed to be stated, and I did just that. You are the one who keeps getting wrapped up with tangents about hypothetical situations. The fact is that the Mass. 2004 bill is not the same as Feinstein's bill. This fact obviously has escaped your attention and comprehension.


Romney was in support of the 1994 ban back in 2004, but note that when he sign Mass. ban in 2004, that was with the support of his states pro-gun lobby, as they got other concessions that they wanted.

Since 2008, Romney has stated clearly that he does not support a federal ban on assault weapons.

His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."

During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"

Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."

The only straw man argument is YOUR hypothetical situations, which are detached from reality, but then again, so are you, so we should expect that. Your hypothetical situation is what does not exist. My reality is that Romney did not support the 2013 Feinstein bill, and stated clearly that he was not in support of it.

You need to learn to have the facts on your side before you try to call someone out and utterly and completely fail.

Facepalm

Romney once supported a assault weapons ban similar to that of Feinsteins with bipartisan support. You've agreed to it, and he hasn't changed his position on the issue since then. End of discussion. There is no other reality than that. To think that he is any different than Obama on guns is completely and utterly false.

[David88vert]

Facepalm

Romney once supported a assault weapons ban similar to that of Feinsteins with bipartisan support. You've agreed to it, and he hasn't changed his position on the issue since then. End of discussion. There is no other reality than that. To think that he is any different than Obama on guns is completely and utterly false.

Can you not read????? I'll bold it for you.

His statement in Jan 2008:
"I do not support any new legislation of an assault weapon ban nature, including that against semiautomatic weapons. I instead believe that we have laws in place that if they're implemented and enforced, will provide the protection and the safety of the American people. But I do not support any new legislation, and I do support the right of individuals to bear arms, whether for hunting purposes or for protection purposes or any other reason. That's the right that people have."

During the 2008 primary campaign, the Washington Post asked Romney, "Do you think tighter restrictions should be in place for those buying a firearm?"

Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."

If you still believe that he would have supported Feinstein's 2013 bill, you are delusional, or in denial. It seems that you believe that you know Romney better than he knows himself.

Finally, look at his own website, and his public statement there:
“...will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes. But he does not support adding more laws and regulations that do nothing more than burden law-abiding citizens while being ignored by criminals. Mitt will also provide law enforcement with the proper and effective resources they need to deter, apprehend, and punish criminals.”

[.blank cd]

Facepalm.

[.blank cd]

Ohh I see. You're right. There was another Mitt Romney created in 2004 who signed an assault weapons ban. My mistake.

[David88vert]

Facepalm.

You are definitely smacking your own face.


Ohh I see. You're right. There was another Mitt Romney created in 2004 who signed an assault weapons ban. My mistake.

Your mistake is not understanding that 2004 came before 2008 (the calendar works like that), and in 2008, he made the above statements. His website had the information listed above in 2012, which also comes well after 2004 (I only mention it because it is obvious that basic math is a serious challenge to you.).

You wanted to create the hypothetical situation of replacing Obama with Romney in 2012, not 2004. His answer in 2012 is clear. It is not the same as Obama's stated position. You have failed to tie them to the same position on Feinstein's 2013 bill, which was the whole basis for your original statement (I figure that I need to remind you, as your memory has been lacking today.).

[.blank cd]

(I figure that I need to remind you, as your memory has been lacking today.).seems to be working better than your understanding of facts.

[.blank cd]

You are definitely smacking your own face.



Your mistake is not understanding that 2004 came before 2008 (the calendar works like that), and in 2008, he made the above statements. His website had the information listed above in 2012, which also comes well after 2004 (I only mention it because it is obvious that basic math is a serious challenge to you.).

You wanted to create the hypothetical situation of replacing Obama with Romney in 2012, not 2004. His answer in 2012 is clear. It is not the same as Obama's stated position. You have failed to tie them to the same position on Feinstein's 2013 bill, which was the whole basis for your original statement.I understand how you feel. And I understand that this information goes against a closely held viewpoint of yours that points out candidates from two opposing parties don't have similar views. However, the truth remains that he passed a similar bill in his state. This is an indisputable fact. The text of the bill is everywhere. It doesn't matter what he said in 2008 or 2012. The fact that he doesn't want MORE laws doesn't change the fact that he felt the ones he put in place in 2004 were appropriate measures, especially since he said so himself. Period. I'm not gonna argue this point any further unless you can prove he didnt pass the bill. Move on.

[Sinfix_15]

3 reasons Americans think the gun homicide rate is rising... when it isn't - The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/243852/3-reasons-americans-think-gun-homicide-is-rising-when-it-isnt)

[David88vert]

I understand how you feel. And I understand that this information goes against a closely held viewpoint of yours that points out candidates from two opposing parties don't have similar views. However, the truth remains that he passed a similar bill in his state. This is an indisputable fact. The text of the bill is everywhere. It doesn't matter what he said in 2008 or 2012. The fact that he doesn't want MORE laws doesn't change the fact that he felt the ones he put in place in 2004 were appropriate measures, especially since he said so himself. Period. I'm not gonna argue this point any further unless you can prove he didnt pass the bill. Move on.

Again, you show that you have zero reading comprehension skills. Read this quote again, and pay attention to the word "federal". Mass. is not a federal entity, its a state.

Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."

Your statements amounts to saying that Romney cannot change his opinion OR that he was lying in 2008-2012, and he secretly was planning to support Feinstein's 2013 bill. Which is it? He clearly stated that he was not for federal gun restrictions in 2008 and in his recent political campaign.

Oh, and you have no idea what my viewpoint is. I actually know that Romney and Obama have similar viewpoints on many issues - they made it clear in their political statements. While this one bill was not one of them, there were plenty of others.

[.blank cd]

Again, you show that you have zero reading comprehension skills. Read this quote again, and pay attention to the word "federal". Mass. is not a federal entity, its a state.

Romney answered, "No. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. ... I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. ..."

Your statements amounts to saying that Romney cannot change his opinion OR that he was lying in 2008-2012, and he secretly was planning to support Feinstein's 2013 bill. Which is it? He clearly stated that he was not for federal gun restrictions in 2008 and in his recent political campaign.Thank you for confirming what I said again. It is very possible his viewpoints changed, but what he said doesnt suggest that at all. The fact that he believes there doesn't need to be any new federal laws doesn't change the fact that he believes the ones he put in place himself are appropriate regulations.

[David88vert]

Thank you for confirming what I said again. It is very possible his viewpoints changed, but what he said doesnt suggest that at all. The fact that he believes there doesn't need to be any new federal laws doesn't change the fact that he believes the ones he put in place himself are appropriate regulations.

He never made any such statement in regards to federal restriction. State regulations are not the same as federal regulations. Why can't you understand that? Feinstein's 2013 AWB bill was not a state regulatory bill.

And I can prove that his stated position changed - he supported the 1994 bill, and specifically addressed it.
In 2008, his position changed, and he specifically stated no new federal regulations.
Why did he change his position? Everyone knows that it was because he was to run for the Republican Presidential nomination.

[.blank cd]

He never made any such statement in regards to federal restriction. State regulations are not the same as federal regulations. Why can't you understand that? Feinstein's 2013 AWB bill was not a state regulatory bill.

And I can prove that his stated position changed - he supported the 1994 bill, and specifically addressed it.
In 2008, his position changed, and he specifically stated no new federal regulations.
Why did he change his position? Everyone knows that it was because he was to run for the Republican Presidential nomination.

His position might have changed, but what he said, and what you quoted, doesn't suggest his position on gun control changed. It simply suggests he didnt want new regulations.

[bu villain]

Blank, I think what you fail to acknowledge is that Romney's personal beliefs both in 2004 and now are irrelevant. He was/is probably far more interested in political consequences. In 2004, it was in his political interest to sign that legislation and in 2013 (assuming he were president), it would probably be in his political interest not to support any new gun laws. His personal views on what is right (which we can only guess) are most likely irrelevant to how he would behave in office.

[.blank cd]

Blank, I think what you fail to acknowledge is that Romney's personal beliefs both in 2004 and now are irrelevant. He was/is probably far more interested in political consequences. In 2004, it was in his political interest to sign that legislation and in 2013 (assuming he were president), it would probably be in his political interest not to support any new gun laws. His personal views on what is right (which we can only guess) are most likely irrelevant to how he would behave in office.

I fully acknowledge that. The question was hypothetical.

The fact remains though that at one point, he thought common sense gun laws were just. Why judge one by what he thinks is right and not the other?

[David88vert]

Blank, I think what you fail to acknowledge is that Romney's personal beliefs both in 2004 and now are irrelevant. He was/is probably far more interested in political consequences. In 2004, it was in his political interest to sign that legislation and in 2013 (assuming he were president), it would probably be in his political interest not to support any new gun laws. His personal views on what is right (which we can only guess) are most likely irrelevant to how he would behave in office.

You get it.


I fully acknowledge that. The question was hypothetical.

The fact remains though that at one point, he thought common sense gun laws were just. Why judge one by what he thinks is right and not the other?

Do you believe that a person's position is not capable of change?

The fact is that Romney has stated for years that no new federal gun laws are needed. It's also fact that his political position changed on an assault weapons ban when he started to run for the Republican nomination.

[.blank cd]

Do you believe that a person's position is not capable of change?I totally believe people's positions are capable of change. But under what pretext? Is it because of new or better information, or is it because you want something. If its because of better information, what information does he have that common sense gun control laws are no longer just or right, after 2004?

[bu villain]

How do you know he thought they were "just" then. Maybe it was just a political calculation at the time. Who knows what he really believes? Romney has time after time proven to be such a political creature, you never really know what he truly believes.

[David88vert]

I totally believe people's positions are capable of change. But under what pretext? Is it because of new or better information, or is it because you want something. If its because of better information, what information does he have that common sense gun control laws are no longer just or right, after 2004?

I think that we can both agree that both of our opinions are that Romney's change was only politically motivated. He wanted the Republican nomination.

[Sinfix_15]

No One is Coming for your Guns!!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MurRvcydlqQ)

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VS6PnVMdViQ

http://govtslaves.info/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect-pentagon-unilaterally-grants-itself-authority-over-civil-disturbances/

[Sinfix_15]

Minute Men NewsGun-Control Frenzy Returns to D.C. with Mandatory $250K Liability Insurance - Minute Men News (http://minutemennews.com/2013/05/gun-control-frenzy-returns-to-d-c-with-mandatory-250k-liability-insurance/)

[AfroDiem]

Dude heres the answer to all of your questions........BECAUSE RACECAR

[.blank cd]

Gun control will eventually happen, and it will be cloaked in an American flag with an eagle shedding a tear, and conservatives will say "this was our idea the whole time"

[Echonova]

Dude heres the answer to all of your questions........BECAUSE RACECARI know you're new here and all. But this ain't the section brah.

[Sinfix_15]

Gun control will eventually happen, and it will be cloaked in an American flag with an eagle shedding a tear, and conservatives will say "this was our idea the whole time"

Dont get your hopes up. It's also not something a "logical" person like you claim to be should even be hoping for...... or in your fantasy world does this gun control happen without bloodshed?

[AfroDiem]

why are you on a car website talking about banning cars ?
banning cars is never going to happen...
america needs them way to much, even in ways to help you out.
you can get killed by anything on this earth, dont mean you should ban it

[Sinfix_15]

why are you on a car website talking about banning cars ?
banning cars is never going to happen...
america needs them way to much, even in ways to help you out.
you can get killed by anything on this earth, dont mean you should ban it

There's 80 pages of reading material here that would answer those questions for you.

[AfroDiem]

dude its just not going to happen , even if they did ban cars i will own one. its what i love, just because i like to build it to go over 100mph or more dont mean im going to cause a crime with my car...... and i dont drink or anything . im always completely sober while driving.plus taking away cars would mean job lost which is the complete opposite of what america wants to happen. which brings me back to saying it will never happen...... now good day to you sir but this topic is completely over. its a shame a 16 year has more since than a so called man

[Sinfix_15]

dude its just not going to happen , even if they did ban cars i will own one. its what i love, just because i like to build it to go over 100mph or more dont mean im going to cause a crime with my car...... and i dont drink or anything . im always completely sober while driving.plus taking away cars would mean job lost which is the complete opposite of what america wants to happen. which brings me back to saying it will never happen...... now good day to you sir but this topic is completely over. its a shame a 16 year has more since than a sp called man

Your intellect is clearly superior. I marvel in the shadow of your mental capacity. I only ask you one favor....... save some pussy for the rest of us.

[AfroDiem]

thanks

[Sinfix_15]

thanks

but..... just for the sake of curiosity, if the majority of people voted to ban cars... you would support that result right?

[AfroDiem]

i mean i would always want to keep cars no matter what but if it happens it happen

[Sinfix_15]

i mean i would always want to keep cars no matter what but if it happens it happen

Well, you're a democrat. Thanx for playing.

[AfroDiem]

Well, you're a democrat. Thanx for playing.

dude, im 16.......

[Sinfix_15]

dude, im 16.......

Would you rather have a job or an allowance?

[.blank cd]

dude, im 16.......

Don't mind him. Just please for the love of god do well in school.

[Sinfix_15]

Don't mind him. Just please for the love of god do well in school.

edited quickly.

Do well in school, get a good job, so you can pay to take care of all the freeloaders who didnt follow blank's advice. Get used to it, because freeloaders will always out number you and by rule of majority, they can vote themselves a portion of your paycheck.

[AfroDiem]

no sometimes people lose jobs and cant support them selves which makes them become "freeloaders" its not there fault. them went to college and thought they could get a job and be safe with it. if nobody will support them i will if i have a protected job.its what we should do

[AfroDiem]

and which i say we need more jobs, which is also my dream i want to open up a company that will be spreaded all across the earth to give these "freeloaders" jobs. they can be very helpful ,america say they need clean land why not pay the homeless to go around and pick up trash for cash ,instead of making some criminal do it for punishment . its a great idea because the land will always be covered with trash

[Browning151]

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1572/425389-1691244_not_sure_if_troll_super_super.jpg

[.blank cd]

edited quickly.

Do well in school, get a good job, so you can pay to take care of all the freeloaders who didnt follow blank's advice. Get used to it, because freeloaders will always out number you and by rule of majority, they can vote themselves a portion of your paycheck.

Afrodiem, ^^ this is what happens when you don't do well in school. You start believing the world revolves around you and your own self interests.

[Echonova]

Afrodiem, ^^ this is what happens when you don't do well in school. You start believing the world revolves around you and your own self interests.Not seeing a difference between you two...





















































I keed.

[Sinfix_15]

no sometimes people lose jobs and cant support them selves which makes them become "freeloaders" its not there fault. them went to college and thought they could get a job and be safe with it. if nobody will support them i will if i have a protected job.its what we should do

With age you will learn that the government is exceedingly efficient at manufacturing crisis. They turn on the sprinklers and sell you rain coats. If not for carrying the tax burden, there would be a lot more jobs available and people would have a lot more money saved up for these hard times you speak of.

[Sinfix_15]

Afrodiem, ^^ this is what happens when you don't do well in school. You start believing the world revolves around you and your own self interests.

Blank is speaking down to a college educated professional who takes care of his own family without a single penny of government assistance. Blank is what's known as a liberal. Liberals may be the least logical living thing walking this earth. Void of all logic and the ability to understand reasoning, the liberal conjures up and image in it's own mind and no factual evidence will cause the liberal to veer away from that delusional reality they created for themselves.

Blank is a pseudo intellectual amateur psychologist, he's got the world figured out and cant be told anything. As mentally strong as he thinks he is, his entire belief system is based upon the fear of not having a safety net. He shares the mentality of the weak.... and that is why gun control is so important to the liberal masses.... because one thing you can note about the bleeding hearts, they're all absolutely terrified of their own blood. As long as you have the willingness to resist them, they are powerless against you.

[Sinfix_15]

and which i say we need more jobs, which is also my dream i want to open up a company that will be spreaded all across the earth to give these "freeloaders" jobs. they can be very helpful ,america say they need clean land why not pay the homeless to go around and pick up trash for cash ,instead of making some criminal do it for punishment . its a great idea because the land will always be covered with trash

Welcome to the republican party.

[AfroDiem]

Welcome to the republican party.
no i will never be with them

[BanginJimmy]

no i will never be with them

Its obvious English isnt your first language. Where are you from?

[.blank cd]

Blank is speaking down to a college educated professional who takes care of his own family without a single penny of government assistance.Are you sure about that? or are you just like every other conservative hypocrite thats said that and ends up being the biggest user of government money?


Blank is what's known as a liberal. Liberals may be the least logical living thing walking this earth. Void of all logic and the ability to understand reasoning, the liberal conjures up and image in it's own mind and no factual evidence will cause the liberal to veer away from that delusional reality they created for themselves.If you were really college educated, you'd know what liberal means. This, unfortunately for you, is not what liberal means. Lol


Blank is a pseudo intellectual amateur psychologist,he's got the world figured out and cant be told anything.I cant be told anything by you.. You said liberals are scum, what am I supposed to learn from you? LOL
]

[Sinfix_15]

Are you sure about that? or are you just like every other conservative hypocrite thats said that and ends up being the biggest user of government money?

If you were really college educated, you'd know what liberal means. This, unfortunately for you, is not what liberal means. Lol

I cant be told anything by you.. You said liberals are scum, what am I supposed to learn from you? LOL
]

Notice how the liberal steps perfectly into the shoes that i laid out for him.

[Western.]

SSDD. In for the entertainment :popcorn:

[AfroDiem]

i speak mostly Japanese

[Sinfix_15]

i speak mostly Japanese

What are you opinions on how china's government operates?

[AfroDiem]

What are you opinions on how china's government operates?
i really dont care im 16..

[Sinfix_15]

i really dont care im 16..

So politics are of no interest to you, but you've already developed enough animosity towards the republican party to say "i will never be with them".

Care to explain how you formed this opinion? being 16 and all....

[AfroDiem]

So politics are of no interest to you, but you've already developed enough animosity towards the republican party to say "i will never be with them".

Care to explain how you formed this opinion? being 16 and all....

im old enough to know from right and from wrong.......which is why i say i will never be with them.

[BanginJimmy]

im old enough to know from right and from wrong.......which is why i say i will never be with them.

Let me preface this by first saying that I would answer this comment the same whether you said you agreed with the GOP or Dems.


If you think politics is so black and white to say one side is right and the other is wrong, you arent old enough or experienced enough to even make that decision.


Now I will explain why I say this. When you look at any number of issues in a series, you will find that the ideological reasonings dont stand up.

Dems, vehemently against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion. I could easily say dems promote infanticide but do not want to punish criminals. Just because it isnt true doesnt mean it is easy to defend against

GOP, crusading against big, intrusive govt, but want govt to dictate who you get to marry. GOP is an easy target to be called homophobes. Is it true? Not in the VAST majority of cases, but it doesnt matter cause it makes a good sound bite.

[AfroDiem]

Let me preface this by first saying that I would answer this comment the same whether you said you agreed with the GOP or Dems.


If you think politics is so black and white to say one side is right and the other is wrong, you arent old enough or experienced enough to even make that decision.


Now I will explain why I say this. When you look at any number of issues in a series, you will find that the ideological reasonings dont stand up.

Dems, vehemently against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion. I could easily say dems promote infanticide but do not want to punish criminals. Just because it isnt true doesnt mean it is easy to defend against

GOP, crusading against big, intrusive govt, but want govt to dictate who you get to marry. GOP is an easy target to be called homophobes. Is it true? Not in the VAST majority of cases, but it doesnt matter cause it makes a good sound bite.

i dont care about politics im not on any side. i could care less

[Echonova]

i dont care about politics im not on any side. i could care lesshttp://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab215/Jon_Dude/Stop_posting.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Jon_Dude/media/Stop_posting.gif.html)

[AfroDiem]

http://i865.photobucket.com/albums/ab215/Jon_Dude/Stop_posting.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Jon_Dude/media/Stop_posting.gif.html)

i was just responding

[Echonova]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/youshalnotpost.gif

[AfroDiem]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/youshalnotpost.gif

very mature

[.blank cd]

If you think politics is so black and white to say one side is right and the other is wrong, you arent old enough or experienced enough to even make that decision.Sinfix referenced the GOP. Afro said negative. I don't think he said anything about an allegiance to Dems.


Dems, vehemently against the death penalty, but in favor of abortion. I could easily say dems promote infanticide but do not want to punish criminals. Just because it isnt true doesnt mean it is easy to defend againstIm pretty sure dems aren't in favor of abortion. No one really is. Dems are in favor of women's choice. There is a very clear difference here. And the aversion to the death penalty doesn't mean dems don't want to punish criminals. These are false choices.

[Sinfix_15]

i dont care about politics im not on any side. i could care less

Then exit this forum, when we need the opinion of a 16 year old, i'll post a Justin Bieber thread in the entertainment section.

[Sinfix_15]

Sinfix referenced the GOP. Afro said negative. I don't think he said anything about an allegiance to Dems.

Im pretty sure dems aren't in favor of abortion. No one really is. Dems are in favor of women's choice. There is a very clear difference here. And the aversion to the death penalty doesn't mean dems don't want to punish criminals. These are false choices.

Step right up and observe the fantasy world of Blankcd

[.blank cd]

Step right up and observe the fantasy world of Blankcd

http://infinity.usanethosting.com/FunPics/UltimateFacepalm.jpg

[AfroDiem]

Then exit this forum, when we need the opinion of a 16 year old, i'll post a Justin Bieber thread in the entertainment section.
just because im 16 it dont mean you can talk to me in any kind of way. just because your older and been here longer dont mean anything.I demand the same amount of respect, your nobody but a member just like i am. You respect me, then i will respect you. point blank

[Echonova]

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll16/fhqwhgaddude/respect.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/fhqwhgaddude/media/respect.jpg.html)

[BanginJimmy]

Sinfix referenced the GOP. Afro said negative. I don't think he said anything about an allegiance to Dems.

Thats why I said it had nothing to do with the parties, just his comment about right and wrong.



Im pretty sure dems aren't in favor of abortion. No one really is. Dems are in favor of women's choice. There is a very clear difference here. And the aversion to the death penalty doesn't mean dems don't want to punish criminals. These are false choices.

Read what I said again. You obvioulsy missed the entire point of what I was saying.

On a side note:
Women's choice is another word for abortion. We arent talking about anything else when we talk women's choice. Being in favor of a woman's right to choose IS being in favor of abortion.

[.blank cd]

Being in favor of a woman's right to choose IS being in favor of abortion.

Nooo. No it's not. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose and not really in favor of abortion. You're presenting a false choice.

[Echonova]

just because im 16 it dont mean you can talk to me in any kind of way. just because your older and been here longer dont mean anything.I demand the same amount of respect, your nobody but a member just like i am. You respect me, then i will respect you. point blankLOL @ "Demand"...



Do something, then we'll talk. I've been "in the game" (as you kids say these days) for longer than you've been alive. Hell, I've got a daughter older than you. You've done nothing but create a "crew" (that nobody's even seen pictures of) and come here "demanding" respect. How about Fuck You...

[BanginJimmy]

Nooo. No it's not. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose and not really in favor of abortion. You're presenting a false choice.

So what else would someone mean when they "woman's choice"?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[AfroDiem]

LOL @ "Demand"...



Do something, then we'll talk. I've been "in the game" (as you kids say these days) for longer than you've been alive. Hell, I've got a daughter older than you. You've done nothing but create a "crew" (that nobody's even seen pictures of) and come here "demanding" respect. How about Fuck You...

lol oh shit nice speech.... i almost gave a fuck about what you said. oh and by the way "my crew" dont need pics eveybody at meets we see say the respect our crew... so why should i give a damn if you dont ? now fuck off

[Sinfix_15]

lol oh shit nice speech.... i almost gave a fuck about what you said. oh and by the way "my crew" dont need pics eveybody at meets we see say the respect our crew... so why should i give a damn if you dont ? now fuck off

Someone please ban this kid.

[AfroDiem]

Someone please ban this kid.

ban me for taking up for myself ? how about you stop being a dick

[Echonova]

lol oh shit nice speech.... i almost gave a fuck about what you said. oh and by the way "my crew" dont need pics eveybody at meets we see say the respect our crew... so why should i give a damn if you dont ? now fuck offLOL... ok. Everybody? Really?


Funny I haven't seen you guys around "reppin'" your crew at shows. But it's only a matter of time I guess.

[Sinfix_15]

Nooo. No it's not. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose and not really in favor of abortion. You're presenting a false choice.

These are choices..... What about the child's choice?

http://feministing.com/files/2012/03/birthcontrol1.jpg

[Echonova]

Just post up one pic of the car Mommy bought you... Then I'll "respect" you.

[Sinfix_15]

ban me for taking up for myself ? how about you stop being a dick

You're "taking up for yourself" in a forum section where you admittedly have no knowledge or interest. Some might call that being a disturbance. Feel free to find a topic where you share interest or have the mental capacity to engage another person in conversation. Your presence here serves no purpose. If you were someone worthy of said respect that you feel you deserve, you would realize that and run along.

But you're not.... you're a pencil dick 16 year old with the intellect of a carrot, so here you are.

[AfroDiem]

You're "taking up for yourself" in a forum section where you admittedly have no knowledge or interest. Some might call that being a disturbance. Feel free to find a topic where you share interest or have the mental capacity to engage another person in conversation. Your presence here serves no purpose. If you were someone worthy of said respect that you feel you deserve, you would realize that and run along.

But you're not.... you're a pencil dick 16 year old with the intellect of a carrot, so here you are.
the topic is "defend the rights to own your car" which i do have interest in dumbass. your just a old prick being bitch about things because someone dont agree with you on stuff. In my mind your not even a fucking elder you trying to argue with a 16 year old and looking like a dumbass doing it.oh and that smart guy shit your trying to do is not working so please stop

[Sinfix_15]

the topic is "defend the rights to own your car" which i do have interest in dumbass. your just a old prick being bitch about things because someone dont agree with you on stuff. In my mind your not even a fucking elder you trying to argue with a 16 year old and looking like a dumbass doing it.oh and that smart guy shit your trying to do is not working so please stop


This thread is not about cars. I'm sorry that you could not figure that out. I am equally sorry that i had to step in and solve this "puzzle" for you, spoiling your surprise, but i did so because it became obvious that you would never figure it out for yourself. Now that you know that, run along.

[Echonova]

the topic is "defend the rights to own your car" which i do have interest in dumbass. your just a old prick being bitch about things because someone dont agree with you on stuff. In my mind your not even a fucking elder you trying to argue with a 16 year old and looking like a dumbass doing it.oh and that smart guy shit your trying to do is not working so please stopLOL... I can imagine a lot of things happen "in your mind" that really don't. It doesn't make them any more true.





Edit: "Thanks for deducting reputation from this user".

[AfroDiem]

This thread is not about cars. I'm sorry that you could not figure that out. I am equally sorry that i had to step in and solve this "puzzle" for you, spoiling your surprise, but i did so because it became obvious that you would never figure it out for yourself. Now that you know that, run along.

whats the title of this thread ? please tell me

[Sinfix_15]

whats the title of this thread ? please tell me

I hate talking to people who are too dumb to realize how dumb you're making them look. There's simply no reward in it.

[AfroDiem]

Your intellect is clearly superior. I marvel in the shadow of your mental capacity. I only ask you one favor....... save some pussy for the rest of us.

-_- but this was you yesterday...... now you sound dumb ass fuck

[Sinfix_15]

-_- but this was you yesterday...... now you sound dumb ass fuck

wow..........

I hope i wasnt this stupid when i was 16.


There's this thing called sarcasm. It's one of the finer joys that this world has to offer. Look it up and begin living as life is meant to be lived.

[Browning151]

whats the title of this thread ? please tell me

Dude, just stop. You're making it way too easy. Go back and read the thread and you should be able to realize how dumb you look right now. If you can't figure it out from there you should probably just steer clear of this section and stick to topics you actually have some knowledge on.

[Echonova]

-_- but this was you yesterday...... now you sound dumb ass fuckhttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/082aaad1.jpg

[Echonova]

Dude, just stop. You're making it way too easy. Go back and read the thread and you should be able to realize how dumb you look right now. If you can't figure it out from there you should probably just steer clear of this section and stick to topics you actually have some knowledge on.
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/EPICWIN.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Gun Ban by Default - Joe For America | Joe For America (http://joeforamerica.com/2013/05/gun-ban-by-default/)

democrats will never stop..... we'll be fighting this fight until the end of time.



How could it be made any more obvious that gun control is not about crime to them? never was and never will be.....

[.blank cd]

So what else would someone mean when they "woman's choice"?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

A womans choice to do with her body what she wants. The morality of abortion should be left solely up to the woman getting the abortion. Not to a 60 yr. old male DC bureaucrat.

[BanginJimmy]

A womans choice to do with her body what she wants. The morality of abortion should be left solely up to the woman getting the abortion. Not to a 60 yr. old male DC bureaucrat.

So yes "woman's choice" is just another word for abortion.

Btw, why do I need some 60 yo DC bureaucrat to tell me what kind of health insurance I should have? Shouldn't I have a choice?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

There's this thing called sarcasm. It's one of the finer joys that this world has to offer. Look it up and begin living as life is meant to be lived.


Dude, just stop. You're making it way too easy. Go back and read the thread and you should be able to realize how dumb you look right now. If you can't figure it out from there you should probably just steer clear of this section and stick to topics you actually have some knowledge on.

For fucks sake, you guys do realize his first language is NOT ENGLISH, right? Go back and read the thread. The guy saw the stupid ass thread title by sinfix and thought he was actually talking about banning cars (even speakers of fluent english cant understand Sinfix's incoherent ramblings 90% of the time). Sarcasm is often lost in translation, especially in internet discussion without some kind of vocal inflection

Now who looks like a dumb ass.

[.blank cd]

So yes "woman's choice" is just another word for abortion.

Btw, why do I need some 60 yo DC bureaucrat to tell me what kind of health insurance I should have? Shouldn't I have a choice?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.No, womans choice is not another word for abortion. Abortion is the only word for abortion. Choice and abortion are not mutually exclusive.

And you still have the same "choice" of health insurance youve always had.

[Browning151]

Now who looks like a dumb ass.

You.

Regardless of your first language you could read a few pages of this thread from the very beginning and understand what is was about if you understood English. This kid came in guns blazing thinking he was going to defend his right to own a car (a) without reading any part of the thread (b) without going back and reading the thread when the err of his ways was pointed out and (c) continued to defend a clearly irrelevant and asinine position after it had been pointed out many times, something you seem to be very well versed in yourself so I can understand why you would jump to his defense.

[Sinfix_15]

Now who looks like a dumb ass.

You.....

[BanginJimmy]

No, womans choice is not another word for abortion. Abortion is the only word for abortion. Choice and abortion are not mutually exclusive.

And you still have the same "choice" of health insurance youve always had.

So I ask again, what else are people talking about when they say "a woman's right to choose"?

Actually no. Starting in 2014 major medical plans will not be offered. Higher copays and higher deductibles will no longer be allowed. This was a lie from the start that presbo is still spewing.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

No, womans choice is not another word for abortion. Abortion is the only word for abortion. Choice and abortion are not mutually exclusive.

blank,
Doctor uses a scissors and a suction catheter to kill unwanted baby = Moral question should be left up to the woman.
Doctor uses a gun to kill unwanted baby = Forget the moral question, we must restrict legal owners from getting assault weapons immediately.
That's sums up your position on this, right?


And you still have the same "choice" of health insurance youve always had.

Except at a much higher rate - don't forget that.

[.blank cd]

You.

Regardless of your first language you could read a few pages of this thread from the very beginning and understand what is was about if you understood English. This kid came in guns blazing thinking he was going to defend his right to own a car (a) without reading any part of the thread (b) without going back and reading the thread when the err of his ways was pointed out and (c) continued to defend a clearly irrelevant and asinine position after it had been pointed out many times, something you seem to be very well versed in yourself so I can understand why you would jump to his defense.


You.....How did I know the both of you would post some off the wall moronic shit like this

and just for clarities sake, since you're both experts on how ESL people perceive english sarcasm, what were your first and/or second languages? Do you speak any other languages than english? Fluently?

You dont. Thats what I thought. You've both made yourselves look even more stupid, which, for you, and especially sinfix, is a monumental task. You should give yourselves a pat on the back

/conversation

[.blank cd]

blank,
Doctor uses a scissors and a suction catheter to kill unwanted baby = Moral question should be left up to the woman.
Doctor uses a gun to kill unwanted baby = Forget the moral question, we must restrict legal owners from getting assault weapons immediately.
That's sums up your position on this, right?Absolutely not, since abortion is rarely this cut and dry, or compared to using a gun to kill it in any rational discussion

[Browning151]

How did I know the both of you would post some off the wall moronic shit like this

and just for clarities sake, since you're both experts on how ESL people perceive english sarcasm, what were your first and/or second languages? Do you speak any other languages than english? Fluently?

You dont. Thats what I thought. You've both made yourselves look even more stupid, which, for you, and especially sinfix, is a monumental task. You should give yourselves a pat on the back

/conversation


And how did I know that you'd come back with some stupid response without even the slightest attempts to refute anything? Because that's how you roll.

Btw, I speak more than one language. Soooo carry on with your baseless assessment of me.

[David88vert]

Absolutely not, since abortion is rarely this cut and dry, or compared to using a gun to kill it in any rational discussion

You should let an abortion doctor know that - scissors are used to cut open a hole in the skull, and a suction catheter is used to suck out the brain - that's exactly how doctors perform late abortions. You can look it up. the point is that the moral choice is the same - no matter what tool is used.
You wouldn't advocate that a woman be allowed to shoot an unwanted child, but its ok for her to have a choice to kill it - just not with an assault rifle, right?

[BanginJimmy]

Absolutely not, since abortion is rarely this cut and dry, or compared to using a gun to kill it in any rational discussion

Sometimes the doc uses a needle and shoves it into an unborn babies brain too.

Abortion is absolutely a cut and dry proposition. So called doctor kills unborn baby.

You still haven't answered my question though. What else are people talking about when they talk about a woman's right to choose?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

And how did I know that you'd come back with some stupid response without even the slightest attempts to refute anything? Because that's how you roll.

Btw, I speak more than one language. Soooo carry on with your baseless assessment of me.

For some reason I reeeeelly doubt that. If you did, you wouldn't have said the dumb shit you said.

[Browning151]

For some reason I reeeeelly doubt that. If you did, you wouldn't have said the dumb shit you said.

Doubt whatever want, doesn't make the dumb shit you say right.

Why don't you attempt to address the points I made instead of hurling baseless insults?

[.blank cd]

You should let an abortion doctor know that - scissors are used to cut open a hole in the skull, and a suction catheter is used to suck out the brain - that's exactly how doctors perform late abortions. You can look it up. the point is that the moral choice is the same - no matter what tool is used.I dont care how an abortion is performed. That is not and has never been the point. Abortion is not always "kill unwanted babies". This is a loaded rationalization. The procedure in which doctors remove non-viable embryos and fetuses are also "abortions", and, more technically, Intact Dilation and Extractions.


You wouldn't advocate that a woman be allowed to shoot an unwanted child, but its ok for her to have a choice to kill it - just not with an assault rifle, right?Are you trolling? Or are you actually interested in rational discussion?


Abortion is absolutely a cut and dry proposition. So called doctor kills unborn baby.False. "Abortions" are used to remove unborn babies from the uterus, whether they are "alive" or not


You still haven't answered my question though. What else are people talking about when they talk about a woman's right to choose?An individuals (womans) choice to have an abortion. Thats what the rational discussion is about. Do you think women should be able to have the choice to have an abortion performed by trained professional doctors or not?

[.blank cd]

Why don't you attempt to address the points I made instead of hurling baseless insults?1. Practice what you preach.

2. The first page of the thread was literally Sinfix making a stupid, shitty analogy of gun control to cars. It's not surprising at all for someone, who's primary language is not English, to not understand that Sinfix was trying to engage in a rational discussion about gun control, since the word "gun" wasnt even mentioned in the first post

[Sinfix_15]

How did I know the both of you would post some off the wall moronic shit like thisand just for clarities sake, since you're both experts on how ESL people perceive english sarcasm, what were your first and/or second languages? Do you speak any other languages than english? Fluently?You dont. Thats what I thought. You've both made yourselves look even more stupid, which, for you, and especially sinfix, is a monumental task. You should give yourselves a pat on the back/conversationSays the self righteous liberal. Cuz think bout it....who are da three greatest political activists of all time.....blankcd...blankcd...and blankcd.......

[.blank cd]

Says the self righteous liberal.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29463206.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

Keeping true to his self righteousness.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HVgEYN_zJxs/UInBXYU5R8I/AAAAAAAAU-4/1ACfQ9oeNFM/s1600/Socialist-Brain-of-a-Liberal-Democrat.jpeg

[Browning151]

1. Practice what you preach.

I told the kid to go back and read the thread because his current argument made him look dumb and that he should steer clear of this section if he couldn't figure out why by re-reading the thread, giving advice not hurling insults. Also, steering clear of this section is probably sound advice since, by his own admission, he really has no interest in politics.


2. The first page of the thread was literally Sinfix making a stupid, shitty analogy of gun control to cars. It's not surprising at all for someone, who's primary language is not English, to not understand that Sinfix was trying to engage in a rational discussion about gun control, since the word "gun" wasnt even mentioned in the first post

Nevermind the 80-some-odd pages after that first page that he could skim through.

[Sinfix_15]

I'm gonna print out of a few of these to have on me when im riding around.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKrnUzvCMAIPzQr.jpg

[David88vert]

I dont care how an abortion is performed. That is not and has never been the point. Abortion is not always "kill unwanted babies". This is a loaded rationalization. The procedure in which doctors remove non-viable embryos and fetuses are also "abortions", and, more technically, Intact Dilation and Extractions.

Are you trolling? Or are you actually interested in rational discussion?



You need to use some critical thinking here. It seems that you have a lot of difficulty when it comes to using your brain.

Most abortions are simply die to the baby not being wanted by the mother in "woman's choice" situations - we aren't talking about medical emergencies here, we are talking about woman's choice.

So, is killing via abortion different than killing via a firearm? Is one killing, and the other isn't?
Since you have clearly stated how you are for letting a woman use her own personal moral compass to determine if she wants to kill a baby via abortion, why are you against letting a man/woman use their own moral compass to determine if he/she wants to kill someone with an assault rifle?

The discussion is not about abortion per say, but rather, should someones's own personal morality determine whether other's should live or die; and, can you argue that in one case it's fine, but in other cases, it is not allowable.

[.blank cd]

Most abortions are simply die to the baby not being wanted by the mother in "woman's choice" situations - we aren't talking about medical emergencies here, we are talking about woman's choice.False. Very false.

http://www.m.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

Women's choice isn't a situation. It simply means the choice of woman, and in this discussion, the choice is between having an abortion or not having an abortion. There is no alternate definition for this. Period.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice?q=Choice


So, is killing via abortion different than killing via a firearm? Is one killing, and the other isn't?
Since you have clearly stated how you are for letting a woman use her own personal moral compass to determine if she wants to kill a baby via abortion, why are you against letting a man/woman use their own moral compass to determine if he/she wants to kill someone with an assault rifle?

The discussion is not about abortion per say, but rather, should someones's own personal morality determine whether other's should live or die; and, can you argue that in one case it's fine, but in other cases, it is not allowable.I take it you're incapable of making your argument without using emotional embellishments and appeal to emotion fallacies? I'm not arguing whether someone should live or die in one case and not another, because that's not what abortion is at all.

Lets see if you can make your case without using the words "killing", "murder", "baby", and "firearm", as these are all emotionally charged words, or emotional embellishments, and have nothing to do with an abortion procedure. I would hope that you'd agree that you can't kill a baby if its A) Not alive, and B) not a baby. So are you able to judge the subject dispassionately?

[Sinfix_15]

False. Very false.

Abortion-Reasons Women Choose Abortion (http://www.m.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion)

Women's choice isn't a situation. It simply means the choice of woman, and in this discussion, the choice is between having an abortion or not having an abortion. There is no alternate definition for this. Period.

Definition of choice in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice?q=Choice)

I take it you're incapable of making your argument without using emotional embellishments and appeal to emotion fallacies? I'm not arguing whether someone should live or die in one case and not another, because that's not what abortion is at all.

Lets see if you can make your case without using the words "killing", "murder", "baby", and "firearm", as these are all emotionally charged words, or emotional embellishments, and have nothing to do with an abortion procedure. I would hope that you'd agree that you can't kill a baby if its A) Not alive, and B) not a baby. So are you able to judge the subject dispassionately?


The hypocrisy is staggering.
http://images.wjla.com/communities/obama_giffords_newtown_families_ap_606.jpg

[.blank cd]

What you're trying to do is to strengthen your argument by arguing that the procedure is wrong because its immoral. I'm not gonna sit here and advocate for killing living things, but I don't pretend that its the only thing an abortion is, and then judge the situation based on that.

Abortion is simply an extraction of a fetus or an embryo, surgically or medically, whether its dead or alive, viable or non-viable. There's no alternate definition for it. Period.

[.blank cd]

The hypocrisy is staggering.
http://images.wjla.com/communities/obama_giffords_newtown_families_ap_606.jpg

Not at all really.

[Sinfix_15]

If you think guns kill people, but abortion doesnt..... you might be a liberal.

[Sinfix_15]

Not at all really.

So, parading the victims of a crime around on the political campaign to endorse restrictions put on other law abiding citizens who were not involved in the particular crime being used as an example, is not an emotional embellishment....

Noted.

And you seem surprised that everyone thinks you're a moron.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, what is a partial birth abortion? and in your opinion, at what point is a fetus alive?

[.blank cd]

If you think guns kill people, but abortion doesnt..... you might be a liberal.

Or...you know....not an idiot


Lets see if I can put this into terms you can understand. I'll use emotional embellishments...

If a baby dies inside its mothers womb on the 20th week of pregnancy, what would you call the procedure to remove it?

[.blank cd]

So, parading the victims of a crime around on the political campaign to endorse restrictions put on other law abiding citizens who were not involved in the particular crime being used as an example, is not an emotional embellishment...If you can't understand the difference between the two conversations, maybe you shouldn't be posting in here.

[Sinfix_15]

Or...you know....not an idiot


Lets see if I can put this into terms you can understand. I'll use emotional embellishments...

If a baby dies inside its mothers womb on the 20th week of pregnancy, what would you call the procedure to remove it?

because that's how it usually happens......

[Sinfix_15]

If you can't understand the difference between the two conversations, maybe you shouldn't be posting in here.

If you cant see past your self convoluted fantasy world, maybe you shouldnt be posting here.

[.blank cd]

Blank, what is a partial birth abortion? and in your opinion, at what point is a fetus alive?

A partial birth abortion is a political term used to describe the procedure to remove a fetus from the womb in late pregnancy. The term medical professionals use is "intact dilation and extraction"

[Sinfix_15]

A partial birth abortion is a political term used to describe the procedure to remove a fetus from the womb in late pregnancy. The term medical professionals use is "intact dilation and extraction"

And at what point is a fetus alive? When a medical professional does an intact dilation and extraction, is the fetus dead? does it die during the procedure? if so? why does it die? is it natural or is the death a direct cause of the medical professional's action?

[.blank cd]

because that's how it usually happens......

IDX's represent less than .02% of all abortions. So how do they usually happen?

[Sinfix_15]

IDX's represent less than .02% of all abortions. So how do they usually happen?

How do they usually happen??

usually by a chain of events beginning with a young girl saying "im not ready to have a baby"

[Sinfix_15]

Also...... i'm curious........

How many abortions happen because of rape/incest?

also...... how many abortions actually happen because of medical complications?

I'm just gonna throw a guess out there.......

rape/incest - 1%
Medical complications - 6%

[Sinfix_15]

So.......

Assault rifles should be banned because 2% of crimes involve assault rifles.
Abortions should be allowed because 1% of abortions are in cases of rape/incest.

Makes sense...... aside from the whole not making any fucking sense part.

[.blank cd]

And at what point is a fetus alive? What point is a fetus alive? Good question. There's not really a clear medical answer, but the consensus is when the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb


When a medical professional does an intact dilation and extraction, is the fetus dead? does it die during the procedure? if so? why does it die? is it natural or is the death a direct cause of the medical professional's action?If the fetus is already dead before the procedure is performed, and the procedure becomes illegal, how do you suppose you remove it?

[Sinfix_15]

What point is a fetus alive? Good question. There's not really a clear medical answer, but the consensus is when the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb

If the fetus is already dead before the procedure is performed, and the procedure becomes illegal, how do you suppose you remove it?

"When a fetus is able to survive outside the womb"...

does that include the ability to fight off the doctor who is trying to kill it?




Maybe we need to give fetuses guns.

[.blank cd]

"When a fetus is able to survive outside the womb"...

does that include the ability to fight off the doctor who is trying to kill it?




Maybe we need to give fetuses guns.

Are you being serious?

[Sinfix_15]

You skipped over the question....

during the IDX, does the doctor do anything to end the life of the fetus or does it die of natural causes? could the doctor do anything to help it's chances of survival? does the doctor play any role in ending it's life?

[Sinfix_15]

Are you being serious?

Does the doctor play any role in reducing the fetuses chance of survival?

na, im not being serious, just another tinfoil hat republican conspiracy theory.
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2012/Gosnell%20416.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

If your causes were actually noble, you wouldnt have to dance around them so much. Just be honest about what you support. You persistently insult me for my opinion on things of a political nature..... but i dont hide from my own point of view like you do. You're constantly drowning the pig in perfume.

[.blank cd]

You skipped over the question....

during the IDX, does the doctor do anything to end the life of the fetus or does it die of natural causes? could the doctor do anything to help it's chances of survival? does the doctor play any role in ending it's life?

You're asking me to go on a case by case basis and figure out in each case if doctors are playing any role in ending a fetus' life after the point in which survival is possible outside of the womb and doesn't mortally endanger the life of the mother?

[Sinfix_15]

You're asking me to go on a case by case basis and figure out in each case if doctors are playing any role in ending a fetus' life after the point in which survival is possible outside of the womb and doesn't mortally endanger the life of the mother?

lol........

[.blank cd]

If your causes were actually noble, you wouldnt have to dance around them so much. Just be honest about what you support. You persistently insult me for my opinion on things of a political nature..... but i dont hide from my own point of view like you do. You're constantly drowning the pig in perfume.

I said two pages ago what I support. We're you paying attention? I'm still trying to define to you what I support. But it seems like you and the rest of the individualist hivemind here is arguing that what I support is morally wrong without understanding what it is that I support.

[Sinfix_15]

93% of abortions are listed as "social reasons".....

6% are because of medical complications.



In those 93% of abortions, what role does the doctor play in the chances of survival of the fetus? would the fetus have survived without interference from the doctor? did it die of natural causes only to be extracted by the doctor?

[Sinfix_15]

I said two pages ago what I support. We're you paying attention? I'm still trying to define to you what I support. But it seems like you and the rest of the individualist hivemind here is arguing that what I support is morally wrong without understanding what it is that I support.

Maybe..... just maybe....


you're an idiot.

Have you considered that option?

[.blank cd]

93% of abortions are listed as "social reasons".....

6% are because of medical complications.Source? Because this seems to conflict with the webMD source I provided


In those 93% of abortions, what role does the doctor play in the chances of survival of the fetus? would the fetus have survived without interference from the doctor? did it die of natural causes only to be extracted by the doctor?I don't know because I haven't looked at all the cases of abortion. If out of 100 abortions performed, one was dead of natural causes before the abortion was performed, how do you safely remove a dead fetus from a womb if you make abortion illegal?

[Sinfix_15]

Source? Because this seems to conflict with the webMD source I provided

I don't know because I haven't looked at all the cases of abortion. If out of 100 abortions performed, one was dead of natural causes before the abortion was performed, how do you safely remove a dead fetus from a womb if you make abortion illegal?

LOL.....

Alright Jay Carney, i'm gonna go eat lunch now.... Your stance is unusually idiotic today, i'm gonna take a break and give you time to regroup.

[.blank cd]

You persistently insult me for my opinion on things of a political nature...


And you seem surprised that everyone thinks you're a moron.


Maybe..... just maybe....
you're an idiot.
Have you considered that option?


Your stance is unusually idiotic today...


The hypocrisy is staggering.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Sinfix_15]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb254/gahamm_photos/New%20mormon%20LOLcats/pathetic.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

http://texasturtle.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/liberals_20copyrqikiq.jpg?w=497&h=588

[David88vert]

False. Very false.

Abortion-Reasons Women Choose Abortion (http://www.m.webmd.com/women/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion)

Women's choice isn't a situation. It simply means the choice of woman, and in this discussion, the choice is between having an abortion or not having an abortion. There is no alternate definition for this. Period.

Definition of choice in Oxford Dictionaries (US English) (US) (http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/choice?q=Choice)

I take it you're incapable of making your argument without using emotional embellishments and appeal to emotion fallacies? I'm not arguing whether someone should live or die in one case and not another, because that's not what abortion is at all.

Lets see if you can make your case without using the words "killing", "murder", "baby", and "firearm", as these are all emotionally charged words, or emotional embellishments, and have nothing to do with an abortion procedure. I would hope that you'd agree that you can't kill a baby if its A) Not alive, and B) not a baby. So are you able to judge the subject dispassionately?

Ok, so all that you just established is that you are not capable of reading comprehension and critical thinking. I shouldn't have expected that much from you.

Let me ask you two simple questions that you probably still can't understand.

Should a woman be allowed to choose to kill her baby just because she decides that she does not want it? (not natural, not "health of mother", not already dead fetus)
Should it make a difference if the baby is killed at 24 weeks, or 24 minutes after delivery?

Oh, and as for reasons of a late termination:
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

[David88vert]

If a baby dies inside its mothers womb on the 20th week of pregnancy, what would you call the procedure to remove it?

Hmm, that wouldn't be "woman's choice" now, would it? Critical thinking.....

[.blank cd]

Let me ask you two simple questions that you probably still can't understand.And let me help you make a clear and concise argument by removing the emotional embellishments.


Should a woman be allowed to choose to have an abortion just because she decides that she does not want it? (not natural, not "health of mother", not already dead fetus)Yes. Absolutely.


Should it make a difference if the fetus is aborted at 24 weeks, or 24 minutes after delivery?Yes. Because it does. A fetus before 24 weeks is physically and developmentally dissimilar to a baby at delivery. There's no dispute about this.


Oh, and as for reasons of a late termination:
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% OtherYes. I posted this.

[.blank cd]

Hmm, that wouldn't be "woman's choice" now, would it? Critical thinking.....

If abortion was illegal, there wouldn't be much choice, would there? Critical thinking....LOL.

[Sinfix_15]

Should a woman be allowed to choose to kill her baby just because she decides that she does not want it? (not natural, not "health of mother", not already dead fetus)
Should it make a difference if the baby is killed at 24 weeks, or 24 minutes after delivery?




Yes. Absolutely.


So why have you spent all morning dancing around the fact that most abortions are simply the choice to not want a baby????????????

You believe that if a woman doesnt want to have a baby, she can go to the doctor and have the doctor terminate the baby.

Own what you believe in and quit trying to put a political spin on it.



The real question is, at what point does a fetus become a living child. So far your definition is "when able to survive outside the womb"....

So can i get an abortion in 8 1/2 months as long as the "fetus" is still inside? if not, why not?

[Sinfix_15]

If abortion was illegal, there wouldn't be much choice, would there? Critical thinking....LOL.

Sure there would.............. just because its illegal doesnt mean it stops you right? Even if they make abortion illegal, you can still get an abortion.

[.blank cd]

So why have you spent all morning dancing around the fact that most abortions are simply the choice to not want a baby????????????

You believe that if a woman doesnt want to have a baby, she can go to the doctor and have the doctor terminate the baby.

Own what you believe in and quit trying to put a political spin on it.



The real question is, at what point does a fetus become a living child. So far your definition is "when able to survive outside the womb"....

So can i get an abortion in 8 1/2 months as long as the "fetus" is still inside? if not, why not?
This is what I mean about you having an opinion on a subject you know nothing about. The only one putting a political spin on it is you. You and David are the only ones using the political definitions of abortion.

A fetus can survive out of the womb as little as 24 weeks of gestation.

Come back to this discussion when you learn something. Otherwise, keep your ignorant opinions out of serious discussion.

[.blank cd]

Sure there would.............. just because its illegal doesnt mean it stops you right? Even if they make abortion illegal, you can still get an abortion.

You've gotta be trolling. No one is literally this stupid. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME.

[Sinfix_15]

This is what I mean about you having an opinion on a subject you know nothing about. The only one putting a political spin on it is you. You and David are the only ones using the political definitions of abortion.

A fetus can survive out of the womb as little as 24 weeks of gestation.

Come back to this discussion when you learn something. Otherwise, keep your ignorant opinions out of serious discussion.

I'm using your own definition that you gave me when i asked you the question and you still insult my definition.....lol

[Sinfix_15]

You've gotta be trolling. No one is literally this stupid. THE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME.

I'm repeating what you said.................

if you think it's stupid and feel that "no one is literally this stupid" then perhaps we are taking a step in the right direction, you understanding that you're stupid. Admitting your ignorance is part of the healing process. I am happy that you have decided to take part in this journey. If there's anything i can do to assist you on your path back to reality, please let me know how i can help. That's what friends are for.

[.blank cd]

Quote me where I said if abortion is illegal, you can still get an abortion.

[.blank cd]

Still searching? I got alllllllllll day.

[Sinfix_15]

Quote me where I said if abortion is illegal, you can still get an abortion.


You didnt say specifically if abortion was illegal, you could still get an abortion. Though i'm surprised that you're disputing this??? you cant have an abortion without a doctor?

In regards to the other objects being discussed in this thread, you said "making them illegal will not stop you from obtaining them"

[.blank cd]

You didnt say specifically if abortion was illegal, you could still get an abortion. Though i'm surprised that you're disputing this??? you cant have an abortion without a doctor?So I didn't say specifically. Thank you


In regards to the other objects being discussed in this thread, you said "making them illegal will not stop you from obtaining them"I wasn't making an analogy to guns at all.

[David88vert]

Yes. Because it does. A fetus before 24 weeks is physically and developmentally dissimilar to a baby at delivery. There's no dispute about this.


So, do you support a line drawn at that period? Do you support the Partial-Birth Abortion Bill?

[David88vert]

I wasn't making an analogy to guns at all.

But you cannot deny the validity of Sinfix's argument....

[Sinfix_15]

So I didn't say specifically. Thank you

I wasn't making an analogy to guns at all.

You said that i should not care about guns being made illegal because i could still get them.

Why should i care about abortions being illegal? you can still get them.

[.blank cd]

But you cannot deny the validity of Sinfix's argument....

Yes. I deny vehemently the validity of Sinfix's argument.

If a gun control bill, as written, states that you can still purchase the banned weapons, what would that have to do with an abortion bill that made it impossible to get an IDX outside of a rape or mothers life case? If a baby dies in the womb, no ones life is at stake.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. I deny vehemently the validity of Sinfix's argument.

If a gun control bill, as written, states that you can still purchase the banned weapons, what would that have to do with an abortion bill that made it impossible to get an IDX outside of a rape or mothers life case? If a baby dies in the womb, no ones life is at stake.

Ok, so make an abortion bill that bans abortions..... but has a clause that says "what you do with a clothes hanger in your own bathroom is your business"

problem solved!

[.blank cd]

So, do you support a line drawn at that period? Do you support the Partial-Birth Abortion Bill?

I'd have to read the bill more. From what I've read I don't really support or oppose it.

[David88vert]

Yes. I deny vehemently the validity of Sinfix's argument.

If a gun control bill, as written, states that you can still purchase the banned weapons, what would that have to do with an abortion bill that made it impossible to get an IDX outside of a rape or mothers life case? If a baby dies in the womb, no ones life is at stake.

Your desperation is quite humorous.

[David88vert]

I'd have to read the bill more. From what I've read I don't really support or oppose it.

If you don't know what it is about, then you really are showing that you have no clue about the arguments that you are attempting to present here.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act)

It's been LAW since 2003, and the SCOTUS upheld it in 2007.

[Sinfix_15]

If you don't know what it is about, then you really are showing that you have no clue about the arguments that you are attempting to present here.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act)

It's been LAW since 2003, and the SCOTUS upheld it in 2007.

hey.... wait a second.............

that cant be true.....




















because that would mean that blank doesnt have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

[.blank cd]

If you don't know what it is about, then you really are showing that you have no clue about the arguments that you are attempting to present here.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act)

It's been LAW since 2003, and the SCOTUS upheld it in 2007.

I do know what it's about. I read it. I said I would have to read it more to answer your question. From what I read, I don't support or oppose it.

What I have read doesn't change the fact that abortion is not legally or medically defined as killing or murder

[.blank cd]

hey.... wait a second.............

that cant be true.....

because that would mean that blank doesnt have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
Doesn't mean that though

[Browning151]

I do know what it's about. I read it. I said I would have to read it more to answer your question. From what I read, I don't support or oppose it.

What I have read doesn't change the fact that abortion is not legally or medically defined as killing or murder

So you are doing exactly what you accused Sinfix of doing, arguing a position without proper knowledge. Pot, meet kettle.

Carry on, this is entertaining.

[David88vert]

I do know what it's about. I read it. I said I would have to read it more to answer your question. From what I read, I don't support or oppose it.

What I have read doesn't change the fact that abortion is not legally or medically defined as killing or murder

If you had read it, you would have noted this part:
"Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

[.blank cd]

So you are doing exactly what you accused Sinfix of doing, arguing a position without proper knowledge. Pot, meet kettle.

Carry on, this is entertaining.

I'm not arguing a position without proper knowledge at all. As a matter of fact, when the question was posed, I said I needed more information. LOL

Good try though. B for effort.

[.blank cd]

If you had read it, you would have noted this part:
"Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

Did you read the rest of it? Or would you like to cherry-pick it some more?

Your choice

[David88vert]

Did you read the rest of it? Or would you like to cherry-pick it some more?

Your choice

Your "everyone else is wrong, and I'm right" position is a tell-tale sign of Narcissistic Personality Disorder - you might want to see a professional.

[.blank cd]

Your "everyone else is wrong, and I'm right" position is a tell-tale sign of Narcissistic Personality Disorder - you might want to see a professional.

There is no "everyone else is wrong" position.

[David88vert]

There is no "everyone else is wrong" position.

Re-read your own posts from the last year. You'll find it everywhere - if you look.

[Sinfix_15]

So you are doing exactly what you accused Sinfix of doing, arguing a position without proper knowledge. Pot, meet kettle.

Carry on, this is entertaining.

Even worse...... i was probably the first person to even mention partial birth abortion on this sight. I posted various links and pictures discussing the process. Blank shamelessly said i didnt know what i was talking about...........

yet here we are with him admitting he doesnt know what he's talking about. Common practice from the liberal left.... just spout things out of your ass and call everyone a liar or a racist. If you repeat yourself enough it makes it true.

[Sinfix_15]

Blank, you not believing in god is starting to make me question my atheism...... maybe i need to go pick up a bible.

[.blank cd]

Blank, you not believing in god is starting to make me question my atheism...... maybe i need to go pick up a bible.

Maybe you should

[Sinfix_15]

Maybe you should

I'm thinking about it......

how's the whole being fully devoted to a lie and unconditionally supporting a false prophet working out for you?
http://blog.beaumontenterprise.com/bayou/files/2012/11/o-THE-TRUTH-MICHAEL-DANTUONO-570.jpg

[.blank cd]

I'm thinking about it......

how's the whole being fully devoted to a lie and unconditionally supporting a false prophet working out for you?
http://blog.beaumontenterprise.com/bayou/files/2012/11/o-THE-TRUTH-MICHAEL-DANTUONO-570.jpg

I wouldn't know. I don't believe in god and I'm not a radical conservative.

[Sinfix_15]

I wouldn't know. I don't believe in god and I'm not a radical conservative.

You're right..... you're a radical liberal.

[.blank cd]

You're right..... you're a radical liberal.

Hardly.

[BanginJimmy]

Source? Because this seems to conflict with the webMD source I provided


Reasons given for having abortions in the United States (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

The third table down. It is 2004 data. Only 7% of abortions for medical reasons.


This one puts the numbers at at least 13%.
Why Women Choose Abortion - Statistical Breakdown of Reasons For Abortion (http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons_2.htm)


Lets face facts. Abortion is a lifestyle choice in the VAST majority of cases.



Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion)

Wiki also disagrees with your definition of abortion. The unintentional loss of a fetus is called a miscarriage. An abortion is the intentional loss of a fetus.

[.blank cd]

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion)

Wiki also disagrees with your definition of abortion. The unintentional loss of a fetus is called a miscarriage. An abortion is the intentional loss of a fetus.Wiki definitely agrees with my definition, since that's where I got it.

"An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced."

So since abortions are also spontaneous miscarriages, using the medical definition of abortion--and I'm just stabbing in the dark here--MOST abortions are kinda medical complications.

[Browning151]

Wiki definitely agrees with my definition, since that's where I got it.

"An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced."

So since abortions are also spontaneous miscarriages, using the medical definition of abortion--and I'm just stabbing in the dark here--MOST abortions are kinda medical complications.

Why don't you just cut the bullshit already and address the issue and what you believe instead of side-stepping with political correctness and medical definitions? How many people do you know that identify their ailments and symptoms with proper medical terminology? Probably less than 1% of people you know, or the entire population for that matter. For all intents and purposes the term "abortion" as far as the vast majority of the adult population is concerned refers to the intentional termination of a pregnancy by the mother, and the unintentional loss of a pregnancy is considered a miscarriage. Quit playing with semantics and step into the realm of reality and address the issue at a level that most voters will understand and get off your intellectual high horse with this "well strictly according to the medical definition" crap. After all, the majority of the electorate you are dealing with cares more about Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy and how fat Kim Kardashian looks this week than the fact that Benghazi is a clusterfuck, the fed govt has flexed it's political muscle through the IRS and the EPA while seizing press phone records to "investigate a leak".