T1B

LTS TRN 2 wrote:But the Chimp 'n Cheney show was of course much worse,

In what respect? Be specific.

When you're looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. That's caring for the national security of the country.

Fair enough. Barry went to sleep with the whereabouts of Amb. Stevens unknown and took off the next morning to mingle with celebrities in Las Vegas. I think he made his priorities abundantly clear and they don't include "caring for the national security of the country."

Oh, Barry didn't end the war in Iraq either. He simply followed the plan put in place by Chimpy. So that would be yet another lie from Plugs.

Sam, I know exactly what he meant too.

88 wrote: Raddatz pitches Biden a softball (go ahead, Joe, blame the intelligence for the fuck-up in Benghazi). Instead, Biden never addresses the question of intelligence and then meanders from Libya to Iraq to Afghanistan to Osama Bin Laden and finally to the polishing of Obama's taint.

And the Dems say Joe won on substance.

To tell you the truth I was pretty disappointed with his answer to the first question, but he got a lot better from there.

And, I was seriously cringing at the laughy smiley thing, but it really wasn't any worse than Romney's constant smirking, phony bluster, ignoring the moderator and ready made list of "zingers". Plus, Ryan WAS throwing out a pretty constant stream of unmitigated laughable deflection and bullshit.

Python wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:I would never try to force anyone to forego one if that's what they decided to do.

Good grief. No one is talking about forcing someone to not have an abortion. How would you even do something like that?

Look, it's simple. If he really believed abortion was murder, he would do more than just say "I'm against it, but I don't want to make anybody feel uncomfortable with my feelings about the subject." He's doing it for poliltical purposes, just like the other side of the aisle takes a stand on other issues. It's all for votes and political power. Just don't come around here racking these idiots for pulling the wool over the eyes of Chip and others.

I think it's important to make the distinction between abortion as birth control (except for rape or incest) and abortion due to health issues with the mother or fetus.

I don't know of anyone...other than Barbara Boxer...who is in favor of the former.

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:Yet, no one can point out anything that Obama/Biden have done that were not previously done by the prior administration.

Romneycare.

Are Biden's teeth large enough to replace letters in the Hollywood sign?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Are Biden's teeth large enough to replace letters in the Hollywood sign?

I saw a funny tweet mentioned on CNN.com.

Biden's teeth are so white they're voting for Romney.

KC Scott wrote:You fucking moral simpletons operate under the delusion that to live in squalor or abuse is better than to have never lived at all.

Talk about delusional...

If that were true there would be hundreds of millions suicides every year. In any event, that would seem to be a personal decision to me. If YOU would rather off yourself than live in squalor, feel free. Just don't presume to make that decision for anybody else including your own offspring.

The repubs like to say that if dems are in favor of more taxes they should cut a check.

If the repubs want these children born they should be adopting all the unwanted children.

But they ain't doing that, are they?

The Diddler wrote:If the repubs want these children born they should be adopting all the unwanted children.

Yeah, the orphanages are so overcrowded right now.

...and be careful about "wanting children" you sick fuck.

KC Scott wrote:And BTW if you really want to reduce abortions - you can give away contraception as it costs the tax payer a whole lot less and doesn't make most of the pro lifers feel like blowing up a clinic or shooting a doctor.

Here's a novel concept -- if you believe in this cause, donate YOUR money to it, and keep your grubby mitts off my wallet.

That's even less taxpayer dollars... and nothing in the Constitution grants the fed the right to take money from me (or anyone else) and buy other people contraceptives with it.

I really don't understand why people hate America so much these days.

KC Scott wrote:

OCmike wrote:
I think it's important to make the distinction between abortion as birth control (except for rape or incest) and abortion due to health issues with the mother or fetus.

I don't know of anyone...other than Barbara Boxer...who is in favor of the former.

I am.

I wish someone would have the guts to say "there are children that should not be born into this world"

You fucking moral simpletons operate under the delusion that to live in squalor or abuse is better than to have never lived at all.

Apparently, the Platte County prosecutor would disagree with you:

One of the injured victims was pregnant, and suffered injuries so severe that an emergency delivery of her baby was required.

That baby later died, prosecutors said.

http://fox4kc.com/2012/10/12/kcmo-teen- ... way-crash/

I'm curious, Scott.

If it's just a fetus... You know, just a bit of protoplasm that has no hope of surviving outside the womb, then why would manslaughter charges be brought against the kid that caused the wreck? Shouldn't the charge be "practicing abortion without a license" or some other bullshit to clear the conscience of amoral fucks that support abortion-on-demand? Shouldn't the kid just have to pay a fine and go home?

And so it goes.

Let's ask Jsc. He's murdered three kids, and he's a lawyer. He'll have an answer.

I don't have much to add to what 88 had to say, other than to rack the fuck out of it.

One thing I might add is that it's highly comical watching libs try to patch holes in a sinking ship by taking misdirected potshots at Romney's.

Keep it up, dipshits. You've got another 26 days, then you'll have the next 4-8 years to wonder why it all went south.

Jsc810 wrote:Joe Biden on abortion: "That's my Church's position and I accept it in my personal life, but I refuse to impose that on the rest of America."

THAT is how it should be done. Rack Joe Biden.

Joe clearly doesn't understand the Church's teaching and doctrine on this issue. He also very clearly doesn't understand what a reversal of Roe v. Wade would mean.

And that makes you a fool for posting the above shit nonsense.

GFYJO.

Mace wrote:

Python wrote:

Mace wrote:Living your life by the church doctrine doesn't mean you impose that doctrine on others.

Standing up for your beliefs does not equal imposing your doctrine on others. You do realize you can do one without the other, right?

He did stand up for his beliefs and says that he lives by the church doctrine and does not agree with abortion. You seem to think those beliefs should be imposed on everyone and he doesn't. This has already been brought up by someone else (Mikey, I think) but do you expect Romney to outlaw coffee and alcohol just because it's part of his church doctrine? Does he not stand up for his beliefs if he fails to do so? No, I don't think so. And no, I'm not comparing abortion to coffee and alcohol in regard to their importance to our national politics, and I don't think anyone should not vote for Romney because of those beliefs. Although it would be interesting to see a poll on how many of the right wing douchebags would vote for Romney if he was proposing to ban alcohol and coffee. :)

But Joe doesn't live by Church doctrine on this...as evidenced by the fact that he clearly doesn't understand what that doctrine is in the first place. The Church does not teach as a matter of faith that life begins at conception. It recognizes the scientific fact that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human organism — a member of the human species — and teaches as a matter of morals that we have obligations in justice to this being.

And nothing Python posted suggests that he believes anything at all should be imposed on anyone else. And since you're supposedly standing up for the rest of us by defending us against the imposition of upon us of things we don't like...I should gather that you would appreciate seeing Roe overturned, right? Or, do you, too, not understand what such a reversal would look like?

Mace wrote: And no, I'm not comparing abortion to coffee and alcohol in regard to their importance to our national politics,

Really?

Then just what the fukk were you doing, exactly?

88 wrote: I might be wrong. And we'll know in a month or so. But I think Obama/Biden are going to get rolled like nobody's business. I see a landslide of epcot proportions in Romney/Ryan's favor.

This bears repeating, and closer scrutiny.

I've seen the tide turning since the debate, as people who actually watched and listened to Romney came to the realization that he was highly engaged and competent. Quite honestly, Americans saw a man who looked and acted Presidential.

Conversely, people saw a current POTUS who was anything but. It was almost like Obama thought this whole debate thing was beneath him and he came in completely unprepared for what he was up against. Maybe he'll do better in the next, but I doubt it. He doesn't have the record to be able to back up his "hope and change" bullshit from 4 years ago and everyone knows it. That's all he really had then, now the only thing he's got is trying to somehow discredit Romney, in any way possible. That worked for awhile, I don't think it's working now and won't in 24 days.

However, I don't see a landslide by any stretch. The blue states will remain blue, the red will remain red. Even were Romney to take all of the swing states, that still wouldn't be a landslide.

But that's ok, a win is a win no matter how narrow the margin.

smackaholic wrote:

Mace wrote: And no, I'm not comparing abortion to coffee and alcohol in regard to their importance to our national politics,

Really?

Then just what the fukk were you doing, exactly?

I was comparing church doctrine and the idea of imposing those doctrines as laws for the country. No surprise that you didn't catch on.

88 wrote:Instead, Biden never addresses the question of intelligence

Sure he did. And he lied about that as well.

In addition to his comment on the Libya security issue, the vice president went a step further Thursday and placed the blame squarely on the shoulder of the intelligence community for the faulty narrative, pushed for more than a week by the administration, that the attack was a protest spun out of control.

"That was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community," Biden said.

Pure bullshit. There was a drone on the scene shortly after the attack and evacuated personnel were back in the States the next day. They knew without any shadow of doubt that there was never any protest.

"Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again,"

Yet another blatant lie. The pathetic thing is that the lie actually makes them look stupid and totally out of touch with events and that is the best that they can do.

So team Obama is throwing Hilary Clinton into the oncoming freight train? The "spooks" aren't going to take the fall. This should be fun to watch.

Old Tard wrote:team Obama is throwing Hilary Clinton into the oncoming freight train?

Dear Lord you are stupid

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Dear Lord you are stupid

Actually, he's wolftarded.

Show a little sensitivity.

KC Scott wrote:
You seem to be confusing a crime (vehicular manslaughter) with a legal procedure (abortion)

Is that your take? Because it's not a very good one.

You're correct. I AM confused.

My question is, why is it vehicular manslaughter? It's just a fetus, after all, isn't it? Isn't that what you, Jsc, and a host of others say? Shouldn't the kid be charged with "performing an abortion without a license" instead? I mean, it isn't really a baby... Is it?

If it's OK to kill 'em on purpose in abortion clinics, then why would a prosecutor give a rat's ass if one happens to die accidently on a highway?

KC Scott wrote: If a woman is ready to terminate her pregnancy WTF makes you think that kid has any chance of "good life" by making the mother have it?

That woman didn't self impregnate. What if the male wants to have the child, nurture it, raise it properly, etc.?

Just because she's the incubator she has 100% decision making power?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Old Tard wrote:team Obama is throwing Hilary Clinton into the oncoming freight train?

Dear Lord you are stupid

Uh, no. He is completely correct.

Bambi and Plugs are blaming State for allegedly denying additional security or, at least, not forwarding the request and they are blaming intelligence for telling them this was a "protest gone wrong." Both claims are demonstrably false and Billary is indeed right in the crosshairs.

Whatever it is, there is always an excuse and it's always somebody else's fault. The only idiots here are the ones who intend to pull the lever for these two chickenshit morons.

mvscal wrote:

In addition to his comment on the Libya security issue, the vice president went a step further Thursday and placed the blame squarely on the shoulder of the intelligence community for the faulty narrative, pushed for more than a week by the administration, that the attack was a protest spun out of control.

"That was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community," Biden said.

I don't see what's wrong with that, or why it's unbelievable. It's a default element of the policy to portray any politically-related event as an irrational act and religiously motivated. That's just elementary propaganda. This goes on every day and has been for the last decade, the outrage is surely just partisanship.

KC Scott wrote: no one said life (or lack thereof) is fair, sunshine

Well if we can get you to admit that at least it is not fair, that could be a starting point...not hope & change, but a starting point....

I'd like to take a minute to see the women's side of this, cause nothing but guys here are posting.

Python, the floor is yours. GO GET EM!!!!

PS - I have seen Python's vagina. It smells like Jim Beam, but looks like a giant clam, but with with human eyes instead of those weird blue dot thingies. I wanted to fry it.

PPS - On second thought, broiled would be better. Garlic butter on the side.

PPPS - What were we talking about?

Btw, ignore the above post. I have it on good recognizance that he ^ is very stoned. Python is a male. What he is doing with a vagina is his business.

KC Scott wrote:Yes, sadly still confused

One is a crime and one isn't

What part of that befuddles your tiny pro-life brain?

That's not an answer. I'll ask it again: Why?

You don’t answer the question because you can’t answer the question.

They’re both human fetuses. If it’s OK to kill one in a clinic, why isn’t it OK to kill one on a highway?

Don't like the question worded this way? Then let's try another: if it's NOT OK to kill one on the highway, then why is it acceptable to do so in a clinic? Better?

What part of that befuddles your rationally inconsistent pro-death brain?

KC Scott wrote:You bleed for the unborn - yea, we all have heard it before

But you don't want to pay for 'em

Sorry but that math doesn't work

No, I bleed for consistency in the law – which has been my take all along in every thread I've ever argued on this topic.

If a babe-in-the- womb is ineligible for “personhood” status (whatever the fuck that is), which you pro-death types champion as your definition of human life, then the worst charge that Platte County kid should face to go along with his felony DWI is vehicular assault. Unfortunately for your specious argument, that isn’t the case.

Your social concern ( ) is touching, but it does not negate the biology of the issue. Human life dies either way.

KC Scott wrote:

Truman wrote: I'll ask it again: Why?

It's been answered

You don't like the answer

You ask the question again

Insanity is described as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result

No you didn't. You ducked it. Twice. So insanity is trying to engage you in thoughtful discussion? I'll keep that in mind.

BTW, one's the law; one isn't does not answer the question I asked you.

You have no answer.

You can't explain it, defend it, rationalize it, much less even understand it.

You cannot answer the question: Why?

KC Scott wrote: You bleed for the unborn - yea, we all have heard it before

But you don't want to pay for 'em

Sorry but that math doesn't work

The good ole' "they'll just end up on the dole" excuse.

This one can be logically picked apart almost as easily as the argument that killing a wanted fetus is more a crime than an unwanted fetus.

Are you implying that one's likelihood of ending up on welfare is a valid reason for whacking them?

How about if that drunk kid had killed a welfare mother or maybe her potential welfare recipient fetus?

Fukk, I guess the judge could just say, "thanks boy! you done trimmed the state's welfare rolls a tad!! lemme buy you your next drink. maybe you'll go out there and whittle down the welfare rolls a little more!"

KC Scott wrote: The only counter argument to this is they could be adopted - I'll agree to that to some extent. There is a shortage of caucasion infants - so much so that friends of ours traveled to Russia to adopt. The same is not true of other ethnicities.

I doubt this is so.

I will admit that older kids with all sorts of serious issues are diffucult to adopt out, but, I am fairly sure that infants of all tints are easily adopted out. The line for cute little blue eyed blonde ones may be longer, but, I believe they all can be adopted out.

KC Scott wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The line for cute little blue eyed blonde ones may be longer, but, I believe they all can be adopted out.

that's because you are an imbecile: blacks left behind in adpotion market

A 70+ percent illegitimacy rate will do that to a race, dipshit.

Lets just say that I am glad I havent followed it very well. What an abortion...

nice to see shrubber is back on narcotics again

Truman wrote:You have no answer.

You can't explain it, defend it, rationalize it, much less even understand it.

You cannot answer the question: Why?

Yep. I've asked this same question many times and I've never gotten an answer.

Yeah, Py, apparently it's only a baby if you want it; otherwise, it's just a fetus.

I'm still trying to figure out the exact moment when this magical transfiguration occurs...

It's a good thing we have Scott around here to clear things up.

Here's how I've always asked the question:

What if a pregnant woman is on her way to get an abortion and someone runs a red light, causing a wreck that kills the fetus. Is he charged with anything?