Dictating how people think sexually and what they do in their bedrooms? Yeah, real conservative, assholes.

That's all.

You ever notice neo-cons (in general) don't give a flying shit about human rights? A shining example is southern slavery and the racial segregation (Jim Crow) that followed emancipation. Mostly driven by folks that considered themselves "conservative." Don't try that Democrat vs. Republican bullshit here; anyone who knows two shits about history would know how utterly different political parties were back in the day, and knows how their philosophies essentially switched over time.

Here's a question: If a 12-yr-old girl is forcibly raped and she might die because her body cannot handle the burden of pregnancy and giving birth (C-section or not), is she still required to die because abortion is bad?

Also, how is it that the neo-con political philosophy involves so much war and yet it's so pro-abortion? Kill millions (most of which are innocent folks who happen to be caught in the crossfire)? Fine. Terminate a fetus which can't yet think and has no memories or identity and no family or friends and hasn't seen the outside world yet? Blasphemy!

Abstinence-only education. Studies show that it's ineffective as shit and teen pregnancy is high as hell in states in which it is adopted. Why? Because kids will still end up doing it with each other and aren't too familiar with contraceptives because they've never learned about them. Sure, everyone knows what a condom is, but I bet half these kids are too shy to go out and buy some. Birth control would be a very effective way of preventing teen pregnancy, but apparently it's sinful because it kills prevents an egg from being fertilized (even though no embryo or ANYTHING with a full chromosome set or has ANY remotely human properties is terminated), plus it takes a lot of work to set up a prescription with a doctor and all that.

To all the doesnt-matter-where-it-is blindly-supporting pro-war folks here: Why DON'T you care who we're warring with? It's extremely obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Iraq did not pose a concrete threat to the U.S., and yet you supported the war. Sure, we were "fighting terror" by battling the insurgency; but that was only after we took out Saddam and removed the government which upheld any order. Yes, Saddam was a horrible, despicable devil. But is that our business? There was no threat to the U.S. There are a shitload of Saddams out there in the world; (Mugabe? Kim Jong-Il? Teodoro Obiang?) why focus on Iraq in particular?

More importantly, even after you realize all this stuff, why don't you change your mind? And why don't you even bother to learn who our enemy really is? Instead, you'll just listen to that stupid Alan Jackson song where he randomly namedrops Iran and Iraq, neither of which had a goddamn thing to do with 9/11.

The real terrorists are the well-educated ones with enough money to fly globally. Anyone paying attention would realize that most of those insurgents in Iraq are not educated at all and sure as hell don't have much money.

Some feel that the U.S. is too afraid to fight the real threat because they're mostly of Saudi descent and Saudi Arabia is our ally, and bares much resources. This could be true, or it couldn't. What do you guys think?

hurr durr

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

This is such a GAY thread Mr 'Me FistaFag'

Hurr durr you to you to and your RETARDED-POINTLESS THREAD
you filthy shitty asshole licking queer.

Try justifying your NASTY life style to someone who CARES.

I do appologize for only reading the first couple sentences
of your bombastic rant, but what do you expect when a gay-moron
like yourself comes out of the starting gate with
LIES and DISINFORMATION.

Because UN-LIKE your first couple sentences, I nor 'CONSERVATIVES'
want to dictitate what "you do in your beds"
NO MATTER HOW FILTHY THAT IS.
-RATHER you want to REDEFINE what MARRAIGE is and FORCE the
public to accept your PERVERTED BEHAVIOR like a NORMAL "MARRAIGE"

GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A DIRTY BROKEN-BROOMSTICK YOU FOUL FAGGOT!
.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

I agree that we shouldn't waste our efforts on ground wars because the death counts of U.S. soldiers can get a bit high. However, I'm all for nuking them. The Middle East - hell yeah! Turn that sand into glass with the nukes. No U.S. soldier would have to die then.

Modern warfare at its finest!

this thread gives me a snork-type boner

<3 sexy other trolls

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is such a GAY thread Mr 'Me FistaFag'
>
> Hurr durr you to you to and your
> RETARDED-POINTLESS THREAD
> you filthy shitty asshole licking queer.
>
> Try justifying your NASTY life style to someone
> who CARES.
>
> I do appologize for only reading the first couple
> sentences
> of your bombastic rant, but what do you expect
> when a gay-moron
> like yourself comes out of the starting gate with
>
> LIES and DISINFORMATION.
>
> Because UN-LIKE your first couple sentences, I nor
> 'CONSERVATIVES'
> want to dictitate what "you do in your beds"
> NO MATTER HOW FILTHY THAT IS.
> -RATHER you want to REDEFINE what MARRAIGE is and
> FORCE the
> public to accept your PERVERTED BEHAVIOR like a
> NORMAL "MARRAIGE"
>
> GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A DIRTY BROKEN-BROOMSTICK
> YOU FOUL FAGGOT!
> .

Well listen here, Martin Ssempa: until you respond coherently instead of choking on your fermented shit-on-a-stick lollipop, my points remain unchallenged. Rainbows everywhere, Adolf!

Troll@msn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Re: There is NOTHING conservative about modern day "conservatives"

Besides the name, obviously.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Troll@msn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You ever notice neo-cons (in general) don't give a
> flying shit about human rights? A shining example
> is southern slavery and the racial segregation
> (Jim Crow) that followed emancipation. Mostly
> driven by folks that considered themselves
> "conservative." Don't try that Democrat vs.
> Republican bullshit here; anyone who knows two
> shits about history would know how utterly
> different political parties were back in the day,
> and knows how their philosophies essentially
> switched over time.

Well, if you're going to play that card, ever notice the strong similarity between Democrats and Nazis? How they both want to control the economy and kill millions of innocent people?

See how absurd such comparisons are?

> Here's a question: If a 12-yr-old girl is forcibly
> raped and she might die because her body cannot
> handle the burden of pregnancy and giving birth
> (C-section or not), is she still required to die
> because abortion is bad?

Abortion is not merely bad; it's the murder of an innocent person and a violation of natural law. If a pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, then taking steps to remove or alleviate that threat are, as with any act of self-defense, regrettable but legitimate. No one (and I do mean NO ONE) opposes procedures to save the life of the mother. The problem is when it becomes "health of the mother", and immoral doctors are willing to use "mental health of the mother" as an excuse to kill children.

> Also, how is it that the neo-con political
> philosophy involves so much war and yet it's so
> pro-abortion? Kill millions (most of which are
> innocent folks who happen to be caught in the
> crossfire)? Fine.

No, not fine. It should be avoided wherever possible. But in the moral calculus of a just war, the civilian casualties which may ensue must be taken into account. Sometimes this means you can't go to war. But what must also be taken into account is who will die if you DON'T go to war. Millions of innocents died in World War II. Millions MORE would have died if we did not fight back. One has to look at both sides of the equation.

How many MORE innocent people would die if state-sponsored terrorism was responded to with just "ho hum, I guess we will increase our security"? Invading Afghanistan was absolutely the right thing to do, because their government basically perpetrated an act of war.

> Terminate a fetus which can't
> yet think and has no memories or identity and no
> family or friends and hasn't seen the outside
> world yet?

No family? No friends? No identity? Are you insane? Nearly every child has these things, even before they are born.

And if you say they do not when tehy are not yet born, and somehow think THAT is the standard that allows us to kill people, then you're pretty much saying any child under 1 can be killed. Any old person who has outlived their family and friends and is suffering from Alzheimers can be killed too. Sick.

You talk about how neocons don't care about human rights. Right here you're the one not caring about the human rights of a child who has different DNA from its mother, which makes it a DIFFERENT PERSON.

There's plenty conservative about neocons. I don't agree with going to war in so many circumstances, but your premise is flawed because you're:

a) Using irrelevant examples (Southern Democrats were NEOCONS? WHAT???)
b) Using extreme examples (12 year old girl raped unable to carry child to term)
c) Framing the argument in absurd, evocative terms designed just to inflame.

In sum, your "name" is accurate; you're just a troll.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2010 01:50PM by Kardinal.

The federal budget has run deficits in all but five years since 1961. The main reason: Both Democrats and Republicans want to raise spending and cut taxes. To obscure their own expediency, both parties blame the other. Washingtonpost.com

pas'ion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The federal budget has run deficits in all but
> five years since 1961. The main reason: Both
> Democrats and Republicans want to raise spending
> and cut taxes. To obscure their own expediency,
> both parties blame the other. Washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/24/AR2010102402217.html
...The federal budget has run deficits in all but five years since 1961. The main reason: both Democrats and Republicans want to raise spending and cut taxes. To obscure their own expediency, both parties blame the other....

Of course, this was his article from last year on the same subject:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051701728.html
Obama's Risky Debt
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, May 18, 2009
...Just how much government debt does a president have to endorse before he's labeled "irresponsible"? Well, apparently much more than the massive amounts envisioned by President Obama. The final version of his 2010 budget, released last week, is a case study in political expediency and economic gambling.

Let's see. From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 percent, up from 41 percent in 2008. That would be the highest since 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 percent.

But wait: Even these totals may be understated. By various estimates, Obama's health plan might cost $1.2 trillion over a decade; Obama has budgeted only $635 billion. Next, the huge deficits occur despite a pronounced squeeze of defense spending. From 2008 to 2019, total federal spending would rise 75 percent, but defense spending would increase only 17 percent. Unless foreign threats recede, military spending and deficits might both grow.

Except from crabby Republicans, these astonishing numbers have received little attention -- a tribute to Obama's Zen-like capacity to discourage serious criticism. Everyone's fixated on the present economic crisis, which explains and justifies big deficits (lost revenue, anti-recession spending) for a few years. Hardly anyone notes that huge deficits continue indefinitely.

One reason Obama is so popular is that he has promised almost everyone lower taxes and higher spending. Beyond the undeserving who make more than $250,000, 95 percent of "working families" receive a tax cut. Obama would double federal spending for basic research in "key agencies." He wants to build high-speed-rail networks that would require continuous subsidy. Obama can do all this and more by borrowing. ...

...It's true that since 1961 the federal budget has run deficits in all but five years. But the resulting government debt has consistently remained below 50 percent of GDP; that's the equivalent of a household with $100,000 of income having a $50,000 debt. (Note: Deficits are the annual gap between government's spending and its tax revenue. The debt is the total borrowing caused by past deficits.) Adverse economic effects, if any, were modest. But Obama's massive, future deficits would break this pattern and become more threatening. ...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Troll@msn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dictating how people think sexually and what they
> do in their bedrooms? Yeah, real conservative,
> assholes.
>
> That's all.
>
> You ever notice neo-cons (in general) don't give a
> flying shit about human rights? A shining example
> is southern slavery and the racial segregation
> (Jim Crow) that followed emancipation. Mostly
> driven by folks that considered themselves
> "conservative." Don't try that Democrat vs.
> Republican bullshit here; anyone who knows two
> shits about history would know how utterly
> different political parties were back in the day,
> and knows how their philosophies essentially
> switched over time.
>
> Here's a question: If a 12-yr-old girl is forcibly
> raped and she might die because her body cannot
> handle the burden of pregnancy and giving birth
> (C-section or not), is she still required to die
> because abortion is bad?
>
> Also, how is it that the neo-con political
> philosophy involves so much war and yet it's so
> pro-abortion? Kill millions (most of which are
> innocent folks who happen to be caught in the
> crossfire)? Fine. Terminate a fetus which can't
> yet think and has no memories or identity and no
> family or friends and hasn't seen the outside
> world yet? Blasphemy!

Gay marriage is re-writing the Constitution and forcing our government to recognize a small population of society. This a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority rules. Most Americans feel marriage is between a man and a woman.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Terminate a fetus which can't
> > yet think and has no memories or identity and
> no
> > family or friends and hasn't seen the outside
> > world yet?
>
> No family? No friends? No identity? Are you
> insane? Nearly every child has these things, even
> before they are born.

The people who just found out they are pregnant and aren't ready for it and have no intention of getting pregnant do NOT have those things. wtf are you talking about

letsfacefacts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gay marriage is re-writing the Constitution and
> forcing our government to recognize a small
> population of society. This a Republic, not a
> Democracy. Majority rules. Most Americans feel
> marriage is between a man and a woman.

Federalist 10 my friend
Majority rule was something this gov't was set up to avoid.

fucj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Terminate a fetus which can't
> > > yet think and has no memories or identity and
> > no
> > > family or friends and hasn't seen the outside
> > > world yet?
> >
> > No family? No friends? No identity? Are you
> > insane? Nearly every child has these things,
> even
> > before they are born.
>
> The people who just found out they are pregnant
> and aren't ready for it and have no intention of
> getting pregnant do NOT have those things. wtf are
> you talking about

The reference was to the child. Every child has a family; the mother. Every child has an identity; they are different from their parents by half their DNA.

Killing a child is not the answer to the child being somehow "unwanted".