Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

[Kathwynn]

sassyliciouus wrote:

<quoted text> LOL all this ^^^ because a prolifers replied with a "well said" to his post to chicky (disagreeing with her).
Ut oh! Kathboy is shakin in his boots for not only going AGAINST chicky,but because a prolifer agreed with his post to her.
TAKE COVER!

Skanky, you are such a drama queen.. Unlike your side of the aisle we all are not in lock step. We can disagree and understand that just because we do not see eye to eye on an issue does not mean we are suddenly on opposite sides of every issue.

However, my question to GTown stands. That was more surprise that an antichoice would agree to expand the ACA or as it commonly known as ObamaCare.

[Long Night Moon 13]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say you did. I said Seattle never used it. Pay attention.
What you DID say was that he said "gunmen don't f**k with police stations..."
That implies never and he never said NEVER.
You continue to fail to grasp that deter does not mean eliminate.

LMAO!! Implies? Nice try...not. Another jackass trying to force something to fit his erroneous claims. I can just as easily state that anything Seattle said about criminals not messing with police stations "implied" that meant "never". It can work both ways, Doc.

He's talking about citizens having guns deterring crimes. Do you really see crime being deterred by citizens having guns? Criminals know it's legal for citizens to own guns, yet do you see that deterring crimes from being committed? Seems like crime is still quite rampant.

[Long Night Moon 13]

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>at least you seem to acknowledge that we should HAVE those rights
"What if while cleaning a gun it accidentally went off?" --- thats why gun owners shouldnt be IDIOTS & lazy.....it's not hard to clear a gun of ammo, in fact if you own, say, a glock it literally takes maybe 2-3 seconds
but the point is you should have worried FAR FAR more about the dozens of cars that zoomed by you while you were walking down the street, drivers putting on makeup, texting, calling, talking, radio changing, eating chinese food, etc..........not to mention drivers on the road while YOURE driving..........but your main concern was MAYBE the gun would go off & MAYBE it would go thru the cieling & HAPPEN to hit you?
i dont get it...

"- thats why gun owners shouldnt be IDIOTS & lazy."

Yet many of them are, and it endangers other people.

".but your main concern was MAYBE the gun would go off & MAYBE it would go thru the cieling & HAPPEN to hit you?"

Yeah, that's right because the guy's bedroom was right over mine and he could have been one of those
"lazy idiots" you're speaking about. Did the little girl in the story I linked ever expect to be mistaken for a SKUNK and shot and killed?

[Kathwynn]

godless by choice wrote:

more hiding of pedophiles by the rcc,i wonder where the most are? the rcc or the rnc?
http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berlin/201...

It doesn't surprise me.. Just sicken me to no end.

[Kathwynn]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
It was a straightforward question. What kind of gun would Jesus prefer? Would Jesus prefer to use a handgun an assault rifle...what?
Let's say Jesus was visiting your house and you invited him out to gun down some of his creatures, like deer or something, what kind of weapon would you offer him to use?

I would venture the guess of a rocket launcher.. Why do these things in half measure...

[Tom Tom]

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you feel that christian loooovvveeee!!!

No, but all can read the pagan hate!!!

[Long Night Moon 13]

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
I would venture the guess of a rocket launcher.. Why do these things in half measure...

Of course...why not leave hundreds of carcasses AND start a wildfire. Now that would impress Jesus!

[Doc Degall]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
You've heard of the word "viable" right?
You're familiar with the laws surrounding the word "viable"?
(if you were, you wouldn't be asking such asinine questions, but I am offering the benefit of the doubt)

It's not an asinine question. It's a perfectly valid question. All along you misguided PC'ers have been stressing the concept of the fetus being "part of the woman" and 'sustaining its life and securing nourishment through the woman" as the primary reason for justifying why it should be her decision to terminate. Now it turns out it is NOT the primary reason......viability is. But what is viability except just another man-established point at which a fetus's life attains value and is worthy of some protection.
On top of which viability is a concept whose definition you don't even understand.
Just another example of how, when you remove the veneer of the PC argument/logic, it fails on every possible level.

[Kathwynn]

Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:

<quoted text>
You did not answer my question.
And no the issue is not mental health. CT has one of the BEST mental health programs in the country. I know this because I work in a group home for mentally ill adults. This has nothing to do with mental health except to give people who do not want to address the unregulated GUNS in this country an excuse not to. This man did NOT execute those children with a banana peel. He used a GUN. Several of them. All LEGAL.
What your saying does not sound harsh. It is just wrong. Mental health was a problem with the shooters. The mass massacres is a problem of THE GUNS.

Actually it is the answer.

Chicky it comes down to this.. Ask your self why in a country has the mentally ill on the street.

While I am thankful that Connecticut does have a very robust healthcare system.. It is still a system hitched to the same one that makes it harder for an individual to receive help.

We need to expand and grow past this point of health care.
America when it comes to healthcare is still some 20 years behind most industrialized nations and really 10 years is probably the closet to a real national healthcare system.

What these shooters are showing is not a need for banning an assault weapons, but a need to address our healthcare in general.

Consider that Switzerland has a assault rifle for every citizen. Seriously, Google it. They learn from the time they can hold something in their hands.

Every citizen from 18 to 55 is in the military. At the same time they have a healthcare system that makes shooters like we have been having a rare event.

Banning something does not make the problem go away all the time.

It just makes the problem a little more hidden.

I say confront the issue head on. We need a real discussion in this country of just how we treat not just physically sick, but our mentally ill as well.

That is my answer, chicky.. Sorry that you would like a different one.

And Chicky I have had friends die by assault weapons on a city street. If you want to discuss this is a temp email addy
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:

<quoted text>
Ummm, yeah, uh, genius, that's because there was no such thing as guns when man invented god. SMH
<quoted text>
OK now wakie, wakie and pay attention, No one has said anything, ever, about making all guns illegal you moron you.

yes there were guns in Christs time, STOOPID

"
Ummm, yeah, uh, genius, that's because there was no such thing as guns when man invented god" ---------- WTF??? you dirty LIAR, actually YOU were the only one to say that! & OUTRIGHT at that

remember, or were you too drunk? you told me numerous times about how you wanted "our guns" taken away!

WTF? admit it coward

[Gtown71]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder why the fundies aren't screaming "blashemy" over this...?

Why, it's no worse then any other, not as bad as using fecesforjesus or Gods name in vain, plus the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, which is when God Himself tells you that He is real, and that Salvation draweth near, and you do more then just reject it as you do now, but you sternly back your ears and heart and tell Him you don't want anything to do with His salvation,and that is only something you and God knows.

Just in case your curious if you have ever commited this sin, then that means you haven't.

Just like I'm 100% sure I'm married.
Just like I'm 100% sure I'm saved

Those who have commited this sin are 100% sure of it, and know that there is a God, and that God will never deal with them again.

Today is the day your salvation draweth nigh.

Have you ever just been by yourself, with a pure motive and humble heart and ask the One True God to come forth, and reveil Himself to you?

He knows your Heart.
He will not turn away from a broken and contrite heart, but He resist the proud.

Its not hard to be good enough to go to Heaven (to be a child of God), it is impossible!

Except my salvation be of the Lord, then I have no salvation.

[Anonymous]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
I ended up not reporting you. I enjoy it when fundies show off their ignorance.
Of course it was bad parenting. I doubt "millions" of parents let their little children shoot guns. I think that's an overestimation. I also know that the Uzi incident was far from the only accidental shooting involving children handling guns, but one would still be too many.

the other fact that you liberals miss is that you feel that the fact that it was an UZI as opposed to a glock means the kid was in MORE danger..........fact is he was LESS likely to accientally shoot himeself withe the uzi due to the longer barrel length....same with rifles/shotguns....it would have been fare MORE dangerous for him to be holding a glock, for instance..........so the fact that it was an Uzi is immaterial

[Gtown71]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
And I'm still asking why the fundies aren't screaming "blasphemy" over this? Why do they remain silent?

Why does it only bother you when someone that disagrees with you using the name God?

Plus -I don't see any cursing, or feces, and it wouldn't bother me at all if they used a little g.

It is all about your hearts intent.

[Anonymous]

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
" jesus didnt need a gun or sword, he KNEW he & his apostles would be safe from lethal harm..."
What? He was CRUCIFIED...hahahahahaha! You fool.
"did you NOT claim that we needed to reduce the number of guns?"
No, I did not make that claim.
"that you dont like guns"
So? I don't.
"& want them reduced"
I never said that. You keep lying.
"explain your position then"
I have..repeatedly.

yes, b/c he was SUPPOSED to be crucified, that was half the point of Christianity, DUH!

you have NOT repeatedly explained a thing, i asked what you want, what do you want do about the gun violence problem?

[Long Night Moon 13]

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>
the other fact that you liberals miss is that you feel that the fact that it was an UZI as opposed to a glock means the kid was in MORE danger..........fact is he was LESS likely to accientally shoot himeself withe the uzi due to the longer barrel length....same with rifles/shotguns....it would have been fare MORE dangerous for him to be holding a glock, for instance..........so the fact that it was an Uzi is immaterial

What? It doesn't matter what gun would make it "less likely" for him to shoot himself..he DID shoot himself. He blew his own head off. And the fact that he did in fact shoot himself makes your post asinine.

[cpeter1313]

Wel, ma'am, I guess I've done my job...

Chick Brilliance Returns wrote:

<quoted text>
Ohhh. Thank you! I always learn so much from you!:)

[Anonymous]

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
You're missing the point, imo. It's a potential person until a successful birth is complete. It doesn't matter what people hold has their own personal opinions regarding ZEFs. There are laws surrounding late and later term abortions restricting it based on ZEF's determind viability. Later term abortions are used continuously by the PLM as if these were mainstream, common, miniature newborns being massacred in their cloud of a womb. Reality shows less than 2% of all annual abortions are later term.

right & you support the right of those 2 percent, you support the killing of 25,000 of those abortions every year

"It's a potential person until a successful birth is complete." - what? what a HELLISH thing to say - that its not a PERSON/individual untill its FULLY birthed?

so, if it's 3/4ths birthed, the head is out & all, its still NOT yet a person???

explain

[Long Night Moon 13]

Gtown71 wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does it only bother you when someone that disagrees with you using the name God?
Plus -I don't see any cursing, or feces, and it wouldn't bother me at all if they used a little g.
It is all about your hearts intent.

Where did I say it "bother[s]" me? I didn't say that, but I do notice that it doesn't bother you that some person is speaking using the name of your God. I find it...telling. Your fellow fundies on here often claim we're going going to burn in hell for just about everything, but someone mocks your God by speaking as him and using his name and that's fine with the fundies. More and more I learn fundie self-righteous and moral outrage is very selective.

[Anonymous]

Kathwynn wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it is the answer.
Chicky it comes down to this.. Ask your self why in a country has the mentally ill on the street.
While I am thankful that Connecticut does have a very robust healthcare system.. It is still a system hitched to the same one that makes it harder for an individual to receive help.
We need to expand and grow past this point of health care.
America when it comes to healthcare is still some 20 years behind most industrialized nations and really 10 years is probably the closet to a real national healthcare system.
What these shooters are showing is not a need for banning an assault weapons, but a need to address our healthcare in general.
Consider that Switzerland has a assault rifle for every citizen. Seriously, Google it. They learn from the time they can hold something in their hands.
Every citizen from 18 to 55 is in the military. At the same time they have a healthcare system that makes shooters like we have been having a rare event.
Banning something does not make the problem go away all the time.
It just makes the problem a little more hidden.
I say confront the issue head on. We need a real discussion in this country of just how we treat not just physically sick, but our mentally ill as well.
That is my answer, chicky.. Sorry that you would like a different one.
And Chicky I have had friends die by assault weapons on a city street. If you want to discuss this is a temp email addy
[e-mail]

"They learn from the time they can hold something in their hands.

Every citizen from 18 to 55 is in the military. At the same time they have a healthcare system that makes shooters like we have been having a rare event"

really?

awesome......like Israel!

I like you better now, you're not as dumb as i thought!

[Katie]

Doc Degall wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not an asinine question. It's a perfectly valid question. All along you misguided PC'ers have been stressing the concept of the fetus being "part of the woman" and 'sustaining its life and securing nourishment through the woman" as the primary reason for justifying why it should be her decision to terminate. Now it turns out it is NOT the primary reason......viability is. But what is viability except just another man-established point at which a fetus's life attains value and is worthy of some protection.
On top of which viability is a concept whose definition you don't even understand.
Just another example of how, when you remove the veneer of the PC argument/logic, it fails on every possible level.

For the two percent of pregnancies terminated during this time frame, you PLM sure make it sound like it is a common occurrence.

And if you weren't able to follow along, dude was asking about terminations a day or two before the due date. That's not legal due to the concept of viability.

That's my point. Your post above has little to do with the topic being discussed. You tried hard to get an unnecessary dig in, though. Good on you, Doc. Keep your true colors bright and shiny.