Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire my bitch (no pun) to the republican party...

you breed it, you feed it.... sounds simple and just to me..... john w

johnw, you ain't a Democrat, are you?

"my law school days"

Hey guys look! We have a new attorney on the board. I'm drawing a complete blank on lawyer jokes at the moment, but I was wondering.... could we just turn this thread into a lawyer joke thread? I'm real tired of the way this thread has unfolded.

JP, just (mostly) kidding about the lawyer jokes thing. That is unless you happen to have a few you'd like to share?<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
John

JP,
thought provoking post...ty...JP.

no, i'm not...

bill clinton was no democrat... george bush is no republican......

T.R. ..... now there was a republican....
F.D.R. ....... a true democrat.....

Yes Leon, I would deny stem cell research monies, and yes,
Leon I would terminate foreign aid.

I believe, Leon that you sound quite like a liberal socilaist!
If you could actually read with understanding, Leon, you could see I have not said I would deny these children anything....what I have said is that these responsibilities belong to the CHURCH! And not to government!

I don't favor any of the programs....they are all unconstitutional!

The Manson arguement....my goodness....we agree!

My post, good sir, was about conception preventions,
not ending lives of the unborn. Hath the devil blinded you
so grossly to what I have said, or do you simply dislike jews?

If I follow your logic and misguided understanding of what
I have said, to its' conclusion....then you must believe using
a condom is MURDER?

My belief is in pregnancy prevention, rather than abortion
which I believe to be infanticide?

If these statements are beyond your comprehension, then it
would be my belief that your hatred of jews is caused by
a devil. And I suggest to find a competant exorcist!

Ah, yes. I get it now. You are old school Roman Catholic,
which believes that birth prevention is sin and jews are Christ
killers! I'll give you a hint, bud, even Peter was a jew.
Just like all the other Apostles!

What you are overlooking is that I believe Jesus was the
prophecied Messiah, therefore, just as in the first century,
I can also call myself a CHRISTIAN! Jew? Christian?
Christian? Jew? If I believe Jesus is messiah can't I be
both? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

You need to deal with your anger management. And seriously, you should consult with an exorcist! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

In the last days, some will call light darkness and darkness light! These are either deluded or hath a devil!

Too simple John! Your statement is not PC. And not..
uh....spiritual enough? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

But I do agree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You breed it....you feed it.....yes sir, that is JUST!

SteveNO,



You were wrong here and you got some weasel clause going on that is designed to insulate you from exposure. The fact of the matter is since the Civil War the executive branch has accumulated increasing power. Moreover, it can certainly influence legislation therefore laws. Now I know that your admitting Clinton's culpability would destroy the legitimacy you're desperatly trying to convince whomever you have. But in the off chance you're open to enlightening, read what others of note have to say about Clinton's culpability in infanticide! I know, I know guys like Steve Forbes are nowhere near as smart as you, but maybe, just maybe you might be able to learn something from he and other social leaders.


Good reading,

Leon

Me neither <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh, and ditto on your interpretations of the aforementioned Presidents.

280Don, You expose the fallacy that is your argument when write such moronic things as:



Don, if you were exposed to the facts of right to life, you'd know that it is a conservative Republican issue, a major component of President Bush's campaign platform. On the other hand, m'man, the reality is your position is wholly consistent with the Democratic aganda and in perfect conformity with one William Jefferson Clinton: justify abortion any way possible!

So, now that we know you are the true Lenin solialist, that you're quite adept at slinging projection, when can we expect an authentic intellectual argument from your barrel?


Good luck,

Leon

FDR was a true solialist and many believe, probably correctly, Elenore was a communist. FDR did more to harm this country than he did to help it, if there is anything in the latter category at all!


Good luck,

Leon

Leon,

Let's bury the hatchet here for a moment, OK? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm trying with all my might to see how my position on
pregnacy prevention, NOT ABORTION, always comes back
to me being pro-abortion and anti-right to life?

I'm trying to address what happens PRIOR to conception!

Now be honest, man. Do you or do you not see birth
control the same as abortion? Simple question. Simple
answer? You are not suggesting that preventing a sperm
from reaching an egg is abortion, are you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

My goodness, man. If that IS your position, why not just
have the intestinal fortitude to simply say so? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
At least that would help me understand your rath towards my
side of this debate?

For what it is worth...from CONCEPTION on..I don't think
we are in disagreement on anything other than how to
solve the problem? I consider myself right-to-life, but for me
life begins at CONCEPTION...not before!

LP,

I said I'd stay out of this, and I want no more to do with the abortion debate. This post is on a separate topic.

Sir, you have respectable intellect. That is obvious from your ability to write well and make cogent arguments. You also seem like a man of character and of high moral conviction. All of those things are to be commended.

However, you seem to have a serious problem accepting that other people may have differing opinions, or even phrase the same position in a manner inconsistent with your own thoughts on the matter.

Example: your replies to Steve_NO. Steve is an attorney, and a damn good one from what I know of him. He probably knows more about the law and legal theory than I could ever hope to learn. Trust me, he is dead-on right with his interpretation of the law and Clinton's actions/inactions. Telling him that he's wrong on this is like denying that the ocean is saline or that rain comes from clouds. You're just wrong.

You go on to question his political affiliation. Ttrust me again, he is a died-in-the-wool Republican with a long history and lots of ties and connections.

Finally, you accuse him of being pro-abortion, even closet pro-abortion. He ain't in any way, shape, or form. If you took the time to ask the man his views, or even read what he's said on the subject, you'd know that he's adamantly opposed to abortion. Actively so, I suspect.

Look, Steve can (and will) defend himself - admirably so - he doesn't need or want me to do it for him, and that's not what I'm attempting to do. I am simply using this example to illustrate a flaw in your approach, and to offer a little advice.

A little well-intended advice, take it if you choose to:

Step back for a minute from this thread and debate. Cool off. Then, come back and start reading from the beginning. I suspect that you'll find a lot of allies that you're currently mis-identifying as enemies.

280Don,

This part of your post deserves special attention for it is the classic bait-and-switch, the smoke-and-mirrors that is clear proof your argument is nothing but emotional hogwash:



No one but you brought this up, and you did so to try to make me look extreme. The only ones who pull bullshit such as this are those who are wholly incapable of arguing intellectually; therefore, in order to avoid exposing the fallacies that are their arguments they resort to cheap attempts at making their opponents appear extreme. Again, this is a stunt used only by those who cannot support intellectual arguments! You are one such person!

Dude, this post has nothing to do with birth control. This post is an examination of the choices women lacking character make when they become pregnant! Your idiotic attempt at slandering Catholics is just plain stupid as is your argument in its entirity!

Now let me clear up one more of your moronic assumptions. I am a titular Christian. Other than weddings and funerals, I do not go to church. I do believe in God, and I believe that Jesus is the son of God. With that established, I do not preach my beliefs! What I do know for an absolute fact is that the intent of our Founding Fathers was that the country they founded was to be a Christian nation sans divine ruler (The Federalist No. 2)!

Ralph Reed wrote that if Christian ideals continue to be viciously attacked by immoral people, if evangelicals continue to be persecuted and ridiculed by those desiring to remove Christian law from society, Christians will react by taking back this country. Make no mistake here, Don, all groups in this country are encouraged to vote their concerns; i.e., gun owners, union workers, gays, teachers, etc. Christians are easily the largest single block of voters, and religiosity is on a upward trend since 9/11. If people continue to piss off Christains, they had better be prepared to experience one hell of a backlash!

My oppositon to abortion is twofold: firstly and most importanly, I know it to be immoral; secondly, I know that building a culture of death will have severe consequences for the survival of our civilization. If the Allies could force Germans to tour death and concentration camps, why couldn't a liberating force compel Americans to tour our infrastructure of death? How the hell are we any different than Germans who lived in Nazi Germany, except our target is the most innocent of all people? At least the Jews, gypsies, Catholics, Germans, et al in Nazi Germany could have fought back!

Don, please try to confine your rejoinder to the topic and hand and respond with intellectual argument. Argumentum ad hominem such as your last post to me is the hallmark of one devoid of intellectual merit!



Good luck,

Leon

VANimrod,



To me, this is the essence of character! In fact, it was the basis of JFK's Profiles in Courage. People of character try to correct wrong; they do not acquiesce to it!

Finally, you're right; let Steve defend himself. Believe me, m'man, I know the foundation of his argument; but it is one hell of a tenuous extrapolation from the role of congress to insulating Clinton from reproach. Read what others have said about Clinton from the link I provided!

VANimrod, as I wrote above, the essence of character is doing the right thing. The right think for Clinton to have done was to outlaw PBA. Instead he chose not to thereby protecting infanticide. Regardless of any nuance upon which Steve is relying to prop up his argument, incorrectly at that, Clinton was the abortion president. And because of his loyalty to those immoral, he chose to condemn full-term babies to death. Remember, all he had to do was sign legislation outlawing PBA.

Why Steve would pick this battle thereby defending Clinton is beyond me. Maybe you know Steve to be Republican, but his action in a weasel defense of Clinton exposes him otherwise! I know of no other Republican that insulates Clinton's culpability in his role in infanticide; however, I do know many a liberal Democrat who has attempted to defend him thusly.

Lemme write this one more time: Clinton's actions in PBA allowed infanticide! In contrast, President George Bush actions were quite different, thank God!



Good luck,


Leon

Leon, you are FAST becoming another WETIBBE.

By that I mean you have ONE issue on which you focus your entire attention, you refuse to even listen to what someone else has to say on the issue, even those that AGREE with your principles, and your take on the whole thing is that YOU and YOU ALONE have all the answers; anyone else is just wrong unless they agree with you entirely.

If you took the time to look back over this whole sorted thread, you'd find that not ONE single person has said that they support abortion. Not one. Not me ('cause I don't). Not 280don. Not Steve_NO. No one. Not one single abortion supporter.

You seemed to have missed that because you're too busy trying to be right about everything. You're spending your time trying to back up points on which you are wrong; trying to prove points that are irrelevant, and trying to demonize or demean anyone that disagrees with you on any small subpoint. You're picking fights and fighting battles that don't need to be fought against folks who have no fight with you on the big issue.

You're missing the forest for the trees, Leon, and you're becoming something that you aren't. Along the way, you're alienating potential friends, allies, and supporters, both of you and your cause.

Stop for a second, take a step back, look at the situation. Do it as a favor - to whom, you decide. Just do it, please.

Thanks, and good luck.

VANimrod,



I have no idea who/what the hell WETIBBE is, but if he/it refutes drivel, then I am him/it.




If you mean that I have the character to argue my convictions, then I am him! Remember, VA, that there were many who argued vociferously with our Founding Fathers over independence!



Lemme explian for you how things work in social science. When proposing controversial topics for public policy, rerely does one expose his/her true agenda. In order to determine true agenda, those of an astute bent have to search for key words. Often those who are too afraid to state what they truly want will take a circuitous route to their desired destination sort of like that described by Charles Lindbloom in his The Science of Muddling Through. For instance, let's examine Don refrain about not wanting taxpayers to support children of dirtbags. To accept this, one has to know the consequences. His position intimates support for abortion, but it is proffered in such a way to mask true intention. If we refuse to support the lives of such at-risk children, what happens to then? Well, y'see, m'man, this is where abortion is introduced as an attractive alternative, the true intention of such specious argument. What ya gotta ask yerself is if we accept Don's premise, what alternatives exist for unborn babies whose mothers cannot support them? I know you're wise enough to know the answer.

Now let's take a look at your not caring what other parents do to their children. You wrote this, and you took considereable heat for it because it really is another specious argument that is really tacit approval for abortion. What you're really doing is acquiescing to abortion while constructing an extremely feeble defense should your agenda be exposed. Remember, we have condemned Germans under the identical scenario for not doing enought to prevent the Holocaust! The fact of the matter is the logical extension of your argument is that you support a women's right to kill her unborn child if you protect her ability to do so under some specious ideal of her right to privacy with which you refuse to interfere. "Gee," said the weary Berliner to the Allied commander, "I had no right to interfere with the rights of the Nazis!"

Bud, critical reading and analysis takes patience and critical thinking skills. What separates us from animals is that we can predict the consequences of our actions and the actions of others. Further, we can also predict what said consequences will have on apparently unconnected areas; in this case, scoiety.

So, VA, what I can reasonably deduce here is your attempt to redefine your support for a mother to do what she wants with her unborn child. The comments in your earlier posts indicate a subtle, tacit support for abortion. In contrast, if you were to peruse my posts you'll find unequivocal condemnation for the killing of babies. And on the position I do have character to vehemently disagree with my oppisition because the very lives of the most innocent among us are at stake.

Tell me, VA, how did we get to this point in the history of our nation where this debate actually consumes so much of our time? Do you really believe our Founding Fathers would have allowed abortion? If they could have predicted the pandemic immorality slowly yet inexorably destroying the nation they created, what actions would they have taken? How did we get to the point where it was assumed that the deleterious effects of Roe v. Wade would be limited to the first trimester to where we now turn our backs on infanticide? Bud, the latter is a classic slippery slope in operation in which we allowed an apparently acceptable transgression supported by the most specious of logic to fester into an authentic travesty. And that, m'man, is the essence of character, or lack of it! You've condemned me because I dared to analyze arguments for authentic intentions and predicable consequences. Further, you have attacked me because I dared to challenge support for the abortion president. Are you so naive to believe that intellectuals such as Robert Bork have not lain blame at Clinton's feet? Do you want me to believe your pal Steve's legal mind surpasses Bork's who has legitimately been heralded as possessing the greatest legal mind of our era?

Lemme attempt to get you oriented here: this debate is not about the best cartridge for deer or the ultimate handgun for trail carry. This argument is about the lives of the most innocent among us and the very real consequences abortion has for the survial of this nation. Am if it pisses you off that I will not budge one iota on this issue, that I have the character to stick to my convictions, so be it! And believe me, I have the character to defend my position and to expose those who have allowed infanticde to occur. And yes, m'man, contrary to Steve's opinion, Clinton did protect infanticide.


Good luck,

Leon

<sigh>

Good bye, Leon.

Leon...let's try this one more time before you earn your way onto my "ignore" list.

Your initial statement and your premise is "Bill Clinton legalized partial birth abortion."

That is simply not true. Period. Not subject to debate.

If you want to talk about what a flaming ass he was and is, or how bad abortion is, fine....I'll agree with you. I spent a lot of my time and money on both causes.

But he didn't legalize PBA. And it's just kind of silly to keep saying so. You've got your panties in a huge knot arguing with people who philosophically agree with your positions.

VANimrod,

<sigh>

Adios, VA.

Leon