LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

So according to rush limbaugh, the republican party stands for...

let it be noted that

DICK DAILY

Considers the MURDER OF BABIES to be a LIBERAL TRAIT AND IDEAL AND VALUE and PROGRESSIVE

He tried to pretend IGNORANCE of Peterson etc

But when confronted with PROOF POSITIVE he ran like the VAG his is!
 
Slowlane said:
You said it's not an important issue yet of all the issues on the board in this election that is the deciding one for you. That makes it kind of important.

And, I don't really give a fuck. Just making conversation.
Click to expand...

kind of. indeed.
 
Richard daily:

Like others, I think your arguements are kind of contradictory. At what point do you consider a fetus something that is ok to terminate if the woman so chooses? You make the arguement that if it can't survive on it's own without the mother then it is ok to abort. Does that mean that at some point before birth you would be against abortion? What point is this? Just recently, in the last couple of years, a fetus was taken from the mother, (can't remember the circumstances) which was about the size of a 12 oz Coke can (or was that Pepsi?) and it survived without the mother (yes, it was hooked up to all sorts of machines, etc.). Would you be willing to admit abortions shouldn't be done when a baby reached that size or do you literally mean that the fetus would have to be able to survive on it's own with no help? If that is the case how do you feel about small babies which have been born, say under 2 years old, should we be able to terminate them if they can't live without the mother, or is it ok if we used other means to keep them alive?
 
Last edited:
subwannabe said:
Richard daily:

Like others, I think your arguements are kind of contradictory. At what point do you consider a fetus something that is ok to terminate if the woman so chooses? You make the arguement that if it can't survive on it's own without the mother then it is ok to abort. Does that mean that at some point before birth you would be against abortion? What point is this? Just recently, in the last couple of years, a fetus was taken from the mother, (can't remember the circumstances) which was about the size of a 12 oz Coke can (or was that Pepsi?) and it survived without the mother (yes, it was hooked up to all sorts of machines, etc.). Would you be willing to admit abortions shouldn't be done when a baby reached that size or do you literally mean that the fetus would have to be able to survive on it's own with no help? If that is the case how do you feel about small babies which have been born, say under 4 years old, should would be able to terminate them if they can't live without the mother?
Click to expand...

None of their arguments will stand up to close scrutiny.
 
subwannabe said:
Richard daily:

Like others, I think your arguements are kind of contradictory.?
Click to expand...
What also makes no sense in his argument is

If ABORTION is NOT killing BABIES

How could Scott Peterson be convicted of TWO murders?

(At first he pretended that he knew nothing of it. When confronted with links, he pretended the FACTS didn't show two convictions. Then he decided on deriding me)

If he will argue that SP was convicted of two killings cause Lacie was preggy for 8 months, and such a time frame is indeed murder

Then he is confronted withe LIVE BIRTH vote that his man Obama voted for

In short it says this

A child that SURVIVES an abortion, LATE TERM ABORTION, and is BORN ALIVE, the doctors are PROHIBITED from helping the child live, but the child must be put in a closet to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When confronted with THIS, BAM, said that it was a LIE, and he never voted for that bill, only to have his campaign acknowledge that he did
 
busybody said:
A child that SURVIVES an abortion, LATE TERM ABORTION, and is BORN ALIVE, the doctors are PROHIBITED from helping the child live, but the child must be put in a closet to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When confronted with THIS, BAM, said that it was a LIE, and he never voted for that bill, only to have his campaign acknowledge that he did
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what BAM said. However, I read some of his quotes from hearings and he sounded - well, confused more than anything. Like he was trying to grasp what others were saying and couldn't quite get a handle on it.
 
As I remember it they weren't saying "prohibited" so much as "not required".
 
Slowlane said:
I don't think that's what BAM said. However, I read some of his quotes from hearings and he sounded - well, confused more than anything. Like he was trying to grasp what others were saying and couldn't quite get a handle on it.
Click to expand...

BAM called those that said he VOTED for that law

LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


They werent, he was the LIAR


He VOTED TO LET BABIES DIE

Because as DICK DAILY says

THAT PROGRESSIVE!
 
busybody said:
BAM called those that said he VOTED for that law

LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


They werent, he was the LIAR


He VOTED TO LET BABIES DIE

Because as DICK DAILY says

THAT PROGRESSIVE!
Click to expand...

Yes he did vote that way, but like I said, what I remember was, it was more of an elective than a requirement. I'll see if I can find that stuff again.
 
I see:rolleyes:

Its an ELECTIVE to put a NEWBORN in a CLOSET to DIE?


Why did he vote to KILL BABIES?

Why did he call those that pointed this out................LIARS????????????????
 
busybody said:
I see:rolleyes:

Its an ELECTIVE to put a NEWBORN in a CLOSET to DIE?


Why did he vote to KILL BABIES?

Why did he call those that pointed this out................LIARS????????????????
Click to expand...

I don't know why he lied, and I can't find that thing I was reading. He said that he assumed that if a baby was alive that the Dr. would automatically save it, that it didn't need to be a law so he voted against it.

Like I said, he sounded confused.
 
Slowlane said:
I don't know why he lied, and I can't find that thing I was reading. He said that he assumed that if a baby was alive that the Dr. would automatically save it, that it didn't need to be a law so he voted against it.

Like I said, he sounded confused.
Click to expand...


ASSUMED???????????????

A lawmaker ASSUMES?????????

And DOESNT CLARIFY??????????????

And he is running for PRESIDENT??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Actually, he LIED

He KNEW what he was voting for

THE KILLING OF BABIES

There are YOUTUBE tapes of him talking about this

way back when

HE LIED WHEN HE SAID HE DIDNT VOTE FOR IT!
 
They can Google any unique line in the quote, especially the first one. It's conformable.
 
Last edited:
Slowlane said:
They can Google any unique line in the quote, especially the first one. It's conformable.
Click to expand...

I know

thats NOT how they operate:rolleyes:

BOTTOM LINE:

BAM voted to KILL BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and when confronted last weekend

HE LIED AND SAID HE DIDNT AND THOSE THAT SAID HE DID WERE LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
subwannabe said:
Richard daily:

Like others, I think your arguements are kind of contradictory. At what point do you consider a fetus something that is ok to terminate if the woman so chooses? You make the arguement that if it can't survive on it's own without the mother then it is ok to abort. Does that mean that at some point before birth you would be against abortion? What point is this? Just recently, in the last couple of years, a fetus was taken from the mother, (can't remember the circumstances) which was about the size of a 12 oz Coke can (or was that Pepsi?) and it survived without the mother (yes, it was hooked up to all sorts of machines, etc.). Would you be willing to admit abortions shouldn't be done when a baby reached that size or do you literally mean that the fetus would have to be able to survive on it's own with no help? If that is the case how do you feel about small babies which have been born, say under 2 years old, should we be able to terminate them if they can't live without the mother, or is it ok if we used other means to keep them alive?
Click to expand...

You want to stand with others such as busybody,ishmael, and the cap'n, be my guest... I can't make you choose your company. However, it will end up reflecting poorly on you in the long run.

The answer to your first question; at ANY point up to viability. The point at which it can live outside of it's mother's body. After that time, I think that there should be limitations placed on abortion, but only then.

Taking your example of the baby that was to be taken out of a mother at the "size of a coke can"... who would pay for that? The taxpayers? Where is the republican fabricated outrage? These are the same people who think that ANY public service is inherently "socialist". Yet they will scream and yell about moral issues, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a blowjob...

Makes perfect sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RoryN
Republican lawmakers say the trade wars Deplorables voted for are political suicide for the party
Replies
9
Views
399
Politruk
P
P
Adam Kinzinger -- "The Last Republican"
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
ChloeTzang
ChloeTzang
SkyBubble
Why Liberals Don’t Understand Conservatives
6 7 8
Replies
183
Views
3K
AlexBailey
AlexBailey
P
GOP infighting 'coming to a head' as Trump’s allies gear up for a fierce battle
Replies
1
Views
207
Politruk
P
M
MAGAs try to pass a budget
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
Pad_Foot
Pad_Foot
Back
Top