TheRealVille Wrote:Did I offer an opinion? Don't assume you know how I think. I've never offered an opinion, either way. Those articles are opinion articles. What is the legislation number of the Illinois bill?
Yes, you did offer an opinion. In response to the charge that Obama supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator, was, to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, well Obama supports abortion." Now, you are once again trying to waste people's time to repost the same information that has been posted at your request before. Explain what Romney's position on abortion has to do with Obama's previous refusal to support a live born human baby. If you support Obama's actions, then be man enough to say so. Otherwise, join the rest of humanity in condemning his position and quit responding with non-sequiturs.
TheRealVille Wrote:Did I offer an opinion? Don't assume you know how I think. I've never offered an opinion, either way. Those articles are opinion articles. What is the legislation number of the Illinois bill?
[YOUTUBE="There you go again."]t3GnWTy8Ebg[/YOUTUBE]
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yes, you did offer an opinion. In response to the charge that Obama supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator, was, to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, well Obama supports abortion." Now, you are once again trying to waste people's time to repost the same information that has been posted at your request before. Explain what Romney's position on abortion has to do with Obama's previous refusal to support a live born human baby. If you support Obama's actions, then be man enough to say so. Otherwise, join the rest of humanity in condemning his position and quit responding with non-sequiturs.
Time after time. Post after post. He resorts to the same tactic to defend himself and his disgusting views.....
It'd be incredible to see what all he'd support just to oppose the conservative cause. I truly beleive that if the GOP supported abortion, TRV would be picketing at their office. He has no spine, but is shaped much like a weather vane.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yes, you did offer an opinion. In response to the charge that Obama supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator, was, to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, well Obama supports abortion." Now, you are once again trying to waste people's time to repost the same information that has been posted at your request before. Explain what Romney's position on abortion has to do with Obama's previous refusal to support a live born human baby. If you support Obama's actions, then be man enough to say so. Otherwise, join the rest of humanity in condemning his position and quit responding with non-sequiturs.
Don't waste your time, Hoot. TheRealVille has no legitimate points to make. He blows the typical, mindless secular humanistic bull dung on this issue. He can't rebut what anyone else says because, as is usually the case with these humanists, he has no answers.
As I said earlier, he wants to enter a gun fight with a pocket knife. He knows that, if he really tries to make his position legitimate (an impossibility), he will get his a** blown off with the facts. But, like his boy in the empty suit, Kardashian, he continues to speak but says nothing. Actually, he is very typical of those who support killing the innocent. He is a parasite on civilized society.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Don't waste your time, Hoot. TheRealVille has no legitimate points to make. He blows the typical, mindless secular humanistic bull dung on this issue. He can't rebut what anyone else says because, as is usually the case with these humanists, they have no answers.
As I said earlier, he wants to enter a gun fight with a pocket knife. He knows that, if he really tries to make his position legitimate (an impossibility), he will get his a** blown off with the facts. But, like his boy, Kardashian, he continues to speak but says nothing. Actually, he is very typical of those who support killing the innocent. He is a parasite on civilized society.
:Thumbs: I don't plan on wasting time on RV. He has been shown proof before that Obama actively opposed Illinois' version of the Baby Born Alive Protection Act and that Obama referred to a live born baby as a "fetus" while he was in the Illinois Senate. He has also proven time and again that Obama's #1 fanboy on BGR is incapable of admitting a mistake. I just wanted to remind everybody else that the information that RV is demanding has already been posted in another thread.
ronald reagan Wrote:Thats the most ridiculous arguement to ever be posted on here. Liberal judges ARE to be blamed for roe v wade. Richard Nixon was to the left of Billy Clinton. Eisenhower wasn't exactly a conservative either. Your knowledge of politics is non existent.
I don't even know why we're talking about Roe v. Wade and 'blame'. Regardless of who did what legally speaking, the problem isn't with the courts.... Its with the people that do it, perform it, and support it. You can 'go with the medical community'... but that'd probably make you against abortion SINCE:
Whats funny about your position is this... You say you're against abortion, but support others who do. Then you say also that you support the medical community. Why are you against abortion? Considering that you're making the case over and over that its ok to have one, and you support those who do. I mean its the most contradicting stance I've ever heard of. And if abortion is wrong, or even right....... then why are you one step in and one step out on the issue? Why on earth would anyone support something just because its legal? Does that mean when its overturned, you'll not support it anymore? That sure sounds alot like having no spine. ie being a liberal whack job. Is the wind blowing? or are you just confused about what you believe? either way... you're on record multiple times supporting it, and more importantly.... because its legal. Leads one to wonder what else you'd support if it were legal? Child molestation? check. rape? check. murder? check. stealing? check. arson? absolutely.
I merely pointed out that 5 of the justices were appointed by republicans, that were in the majority. That's fact. Spin it any way you want. Were 5 0f the 7 majority appointed by republicans, or not? Were 6 of the 9 justices appointed by republicans, or not? Those two facts were exactly what I posted. Again, if you got a beef with R v W, blame the republicans, they put the justices there.
Boy, you two get your panties in a wad pretty quick, huh? :biglmao:
nicker::moon:
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yes, you did offer an opinion. In response to the charge that Obama supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator, was, to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, well Obama supports abortion." Now, you are once again trying to waste people's time to repost the same information that has been posted at your request before. Explain what Romney's position on abortion has to do with Obama's previous refusal to support a live born human baby. If you support Obama's actions, then be man enough to say so. Otherwise, join the rest of humanity in condemning his position and quit responding with non-sequiturs.
Show the quote where I defended Obamas position on being born alive. I've also never said Obama was not pro-choice. It's common knowledge that he is.
For some reason, the repeated non-responses by some to the OP bring the following quote to mind.
Quote:...the five d's of dodgeball: dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! - Patches O'Houlihan
TheRealVille Wrote:Boy, you two get your panties in a wad pretty quick, huh? :biglmao:nicker::moon:
No, TheRealVille, the fact is that we don't like incompetents whether they be in the White House or in Paintsville who blow smoke but have no fire. Apparently empty chairs are not limited to your boy in the White House.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:No, TheRealVille, the fact is that we don't like incompetents whether they be in the White House or in Paintsville who blow smoke but have no fire. Apparently empty chairs are not limited to your boy in the White House.
The empty chair and his empty foot stool.
nicker:
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:No, TheRealVille, the fact is that we don't like incompetents whether they be in the White House or in Paintsville who blow smoke but have no fire. Apparently empty chairs are not limited to your boy in the White House.
Feel free to show anything in this thread about abortion that I have posted wrong information.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Yes, you did offer an opinion. In response to the charge that Obama supported infanticide as an Illinois State Senator, was, to paraphrase, "Oh yeah, well Obama supports abortion." Now, you are once again trying to waste people's time to repost the same information that has been posted at your request before. Explain what Romney's position on abortion has to do with Obama's previous refusal to support a live born human baby. If you support Obama's actions, then be man enough to say so. Otherwise, join the rest of humanity in condemning his position and quit responding with non-sequiturs.
Care to show me the post where I offered an opinion, or your so called paraphrase?
TheRealVille Wrote:I merely pointed out that 5 of the justices were appointed by republicans, that were in the majority. That's fact. Spin it any way you want. Were 5 0f the 7 majority appointed by republicans, or not? Were 6 of the 9 justices appointed by republicans, or not? Those two facts were exactly what I posted. Again, if you got a beef with R v W, blame the republicans, they put the justices there.
I posted that 6 of the 9 were GOP long ago. And guess what, I didn't have to look that up. I'm making it clear to you, so you don't continue to insinuate it.... it was NOT a right leaning court. So in response to your last post... There. Thats where you've posted something wrong. I don't have a beef with Roe v. Wade. I have a beef with three groups of people, those that have them, those that perform them, and those that support them.
So here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Denounce Barack Obama's disgusting actions on live birth abortion legislation.
btw, you did it again. Only picked the tiny part of the post you THOUGHT you could refute.... Thats awesome.
inglepar You prove me more right with each post. Thanks.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:No, TheRealVille, the fact is that we don't like incompetents whether they be in the White House or in Paintsville who blow smoke but have no fire. Apparently empty chairs are not limited to your boy in the White House.
Did I ask you to like me, or even act like I cared whether you did, or not?
BTW, ronald reagan, what happened to the cozy little PM you sent me almost two weeks ago where you assured me you would stay civil in our discussions? Did you mean only when I agree with you?
ronald reagan Wrote:I posted that 6 of the 9 were GOP long ago. And guess what, I didn't have to look that up. I'm making it clear to you, so you don't continue to insinuate it.... it was NOT a right leaning court. So in response to your last post... There. Thats where you've posted something wrong. I don't have a beef with Roe v. Wade. I have a beef with three groups of people, those that have them, those that perform them, and those that support them.
So here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Denounce Barack Obama's disgusting actions on live birth abortion legislation.
btw, you did it again. Only picked the tiny part of the post you THOUGHT you could refute.... Thats awesome. inglepar You prove me more right with each post. Thanks.
I don't support letting born alive babies die, but you seem to leave out that There was already federal laws not allowing them to die, before Obama and IL. Medical definitions of viable and pre viable are relevant here. Obama has said that he would have supported IL's law if it had been written like the Federal version, which didn't have wording that would make it possible for IL to deny abortions to women. IL's version could possibly deny women the right to abort, with it's wording. IL was trying to define a
previable fetus as alive, and with that, as it came out, it had human rights. That effectively does away with RvW, in IL. The federal bill had an amendment that said it wouldn't encroach on RvW, Obama said he would support the bill, worded like that.
TheRealVille Wrote:I don't support letting born alive babies die, but you seem to leave out that There was already federal laws not allowing them to die, before Obama and IL. Medical definitions of viable and pre viable are relevant here. Obama has said that he would have supported IL's law if it had been written like the Federal version, which didn't have wording that would make it possible for IL to deny abortions to women. IL's version could possibly deny women the right to abort, with it's wording. IL was trying to define a previable fetus as alive, and with that, as it came out, it had human rights. That effectively does away with RvW, in IL. The federal bill had an amendment that said it wouldn't encroach on RvW, Obama said he would support the bill, worded like that.
You are one sick puppy. And what happened with me remaining civil? your support of abortion, and a man that has spent his life trying to make it even more widespread.
But like I said, Obama is supporting the destruction of the black race. Maybe its his 'half white' side?
I'd like to read the legislation from the federal law dealing with this. As good of a googler that I am, I can't seem to find it. Anyone care to help out?
A federal law seems like an overreach of government according to the constitution. Seems that states should have the final say on this issue, unless a constitutional amendment is offered to ban the practice. Other federal law should only step in to make interstate laws. But not intrastate.
I just read a quote from Obama that notes that he is actively trying to reduce the number of abortions but fully supports the womens right to choose?
THATS BY FAR THE CRAZIEST THING EVER TO BE SAID.
TRV, you're in second... for now.
Why would someone want to reduce the number of abortions, if abortions aren't a bad thing? Because it sounds good politically? I sure wish Obama would have been a 'statistic' of this topic.
ronald reagan Wrote:I just read a quote from Obama that notes that he is actively trying to reduce the number of abortions but fully supports the womens right to choose?
THATS BY FAR THE CRAZIEST THING EVER TO BE SAID.
TRV, you're in second... for now.
Why would someone want to reduce the number of abortions, if abortions aren't a bad thing? Because it sounds good politically? I sure wish Obama would have been a 'statistic' of this topic.
Because he thinks like a lot of people? He, like me, thinks abortion, under normal circumstances are not good, but that the high court has ruled that it is the womans right to choose.
Abortions bad, womens' right to make that bad choice, legal. The high court at the time is who you should have a grievance against. It's pretty simple. In a nutshell, overturning RvW is above Obama's pay grade.
TheRealVille Wrote:I don't support letting born alive babies die, but you seem to leave out that There was already federal laws not allowing them to die, before Obama and IL. Medical definitions of viable and pre viable are relevant here. Obama has said that he would have supported IL's law if it had been written like the Federal version, which didn't have wording that would make it possible for IL to deny abortions to women. IL's version could possibly deny women the right to abort, with it's wording. IL was trying to define a previable fetus as alive, and with that, as it came out, it had human rights. That effectively does away with RvW, in IL. The federal bill had an amendment that said it wouldn't encroach on RvW, Obama said he would support the bill, worded like that.
Only someone like TheRealVille could be taken in by Kardashin's lies and BS. The bottom line is that his boy is 100% pro-abortion and anti-life. He has no respect for the value of human life. He has never in his life had any other position than the radical position he espouses now. And, he has never made any effort to hide it.
the only thing more despicable than Kardashian's pro-death philosophy is the fact that so many alleged "moral" people support him. I will be nice and merely call them fools.
TheRealVille Wrote:Did I ask you to like me, or even act like I cared whether you did, or not?
That's good because, in truth. I don't like or dislike you. To like or dislike someone requires a degree of respect for that person. You fail that test. You are merely a prime example of why this country is on the steep decline financially and morally.
TheRealVille Wrote:Because he thinks like a lot of people? He, like me, thinks abortion, under normal circumstances are not good, but that the high court has ruled that it is the womans right to choose.
Abortions bad, womens' right to make that bad choice, legal. The high court at the time is who you should have a grievance against. It's pretty simple. In a nutshell, overturning RvW is above Obama's pay grade.
How wrong you are. again.
Abortion is NOT the fault of the supreme court. Its the fault of three particular groups of people. Those that have them, those that perform them, and those that support them. Your rationale that something is ok 'because they think like alot of people' is insane. You say that Barry has no control over RvW as well. WRONG. He could do and have done the following. 1)Called upon his party to support an amendment to ban it. 2)Sent legislation or guiding principles to the Congress that would effectively overturn the RvW decision and bar the court from hearing arguements on it. 3)The most important way he could have influenced the decision but failed miserably at..... He has appointed 2 ultra liberals to the court that could have been pro-life. That would have tipped the balance and allowed it to be overturned. He also has appointed mostly liberal judges to the rest of the courts, hundreds. On top of that, he repealed (I believe) the Mexico City rule. And has continued to fund abortion in China through the UN population control measures. He's evil.
You also say that Barrack believes like you. So you'd support his view on abortion, and trust me... he doesn't believe in abortion during the first trimest for cases of rape, incest, and such. He believes in abortion on demand, at any stage, for any reason. He believes so strongly that he'd vote against born alive amendments just because it 'may burden RvW'. I'm glad though that you've finally came clean with your views, and compared them to King Obama.
ronald reagan Wrote:How wrong you are. again.
Abortion is NOT the fault of the supreme court. Its the fault of three particular groups of people. Those that have them, those that perform them, and those that support them. Your rationale that something is ok 'because they think like alot of people' is insane. You say that Barry has no control over RvW as well. WRONG. He could do and have done the following. 1)Called upon his party to support an amendment to ban it. 2)Sent legislation or guiding principles to the Congress that would effectively overturn the RvW decision and bar the court from hearing arguements on it. 3)The most important way he could have influenced the decision but failed miserably at..... He has appointed 2 ultra liberals to the court that could have been pro-life. That would have tipped the balance and allowed it to be overturned. He also has appointed mostly liberal judges to the rest of the courts, hundreds. On top of that, he repealed (I believe) the Mexico City rule. And has continued to fund abortion in China through the UN population control measures. He's evil.
You also say that Barrack believes like you. So you'd support his view on abortion, and trust me... he doesn't believe in abortion during the first trimest for cases of rape, incest, and such. He believes in abortion on demand, at any stage, for any reason. He believes so strongly that he'd vote against born alive amendments just because it 'may burden RvW'. I'm glad though that you've finally came clean with your views, and compared them to King Obama.
What have the republican Presidents done to overturn it?
TheRealVille Wrote:I don't support letting born alive babies die, but you seem to leave out that There was already federal laws not allowing them to die, before Obama and IL. Medical definitions of viable and pre viable are relevant here. Obama has said that he would have supported IL's law if it had been written like the Federal version, which didn't have wording that would make it possible for IL to deny abortions to women. IL's version could possibly deny women the right to abort, with it's wording. IL was trying to define a previable fetus as alive, and with that, as it came out, it had human rights. That effectively does away with RvW, in IL. The federal bill had an amendment that said it wouldn't encroach on RvW, Obama said he would support the bill, worded like that.
It seems to me I found where the problem is. the amendment you speak of wasn't passed until 2002. From what I can find.... Obama voted NO in regards to the above bill, BEFORE the federal amendment was passed and signed.
But later, he voted YES on an amendment that made the bill identical as the federal in its protections. THEN VOTED NO ON THE BILL!!!! So, it wasn't that he'd vote for it if it were like the federal amendment. Your boy is a baby killer. And so are you.
http://www.bornalivetruth.org/obamarecord.php
TheRealVille Wrote:What have the republican Presidents done to overturn it?
There you go again. When facts are presented, and you're found wrong, you default to... "republicans this and republicans that." What does that have to do with Obama's failure? Over and over again, you do this. It makes you look very immature. Address the issue at hand. Obama is a baby killer.
But to be certain that you are fulfilled with knowledge. Bush appointed pro-life votes to the federal courts, appeals courts, the supreme court (adding 1 to the total), signed the born alive amendment, banned abortion fundng overseas with the mexico city rule, stopped contributing to the UN population control fund, lowered funding for abortion providers, faught for and passed the partial birth abortion bill.... thats just right off the top of my head.
Next.
hh:
ronald reagan Wrote:There you go again. When facts are presented, and you're found wrong, you default to... "republicans this and republicans that." What does that have to do with Obama's failure? Over and over again, you do this. It makes you look very immature. Address the issue at hand. Obama is a baby killer.
But to be certain that you are fulfilled with knowledge. Bush appointed pro-life votes to the federal courts, appeals courts, the supreme court (adding 1 to the total), signed the born alive amendment, banned abortion fundng overseas with the mexico city rule, stopped contributing to the UN population control fund, lowered funding for abortion providers, faught for and passed the partial birth abortion bill.... thats just right off the top of my head.
Next. hh:
Listen, I used to vote strictly republican, just mainly on this one issue. I finally figured out it was just a talking point, and smokescreen for the red party. They can't fool me with this anymore. I voted for Bush, twice, where'd that get us?