• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Worst Post Ever In "Political Bull"

Mike

Well-known member
rancher

Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 26299
Location: Northeast Montana
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:43 pm Post subject:
loomixguy wrote:


If he truly wants to save the lives of innocent children, he should work to repeal Roe v. Wade........

OT wrote:
So there can be more unwanted kids on the welfare rolls

Amazing how a liberal justifies abortions by saying those children might have been or will be an unwanted child. So it's OK to KILL them?

Which ones do the gov't choose to pay for, all of them or just the ones that MIGHT be unwanted later, or the ones unwanted now?

This is the most sickening line of reasoning I have ever seen in my life!
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
I can't agree more. Sick! For someone to claim to be the defender of the oppressed... he's okay killing the most innocent and defenseless. To hear him talk about helping kids, and call these unwanted.
So is every adopted child unwanted and deserving of the death penalty?
 

Mike

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
I can't agree more. Sick! For someone to claim to be the defender of the oppressed... he's okay killing the most innocent and defenseless. To hear him talk about helping kids, and call these unwanted.
So is every adopted child unwanted and deserving of the death penalty?

He said that as if abortion is a real solution. He is one twisted individual.

Champion of children my azz!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:
 

Steve

Well-known member
his thinking isn't much different then most typical liberals..

I feel if the federal government has created the problem, not solved it


1. they provide welfare..

2.They take the father out of the picture

once the family structure was broken they pushed for free contraceptives as the solution...

and knowing those fail at an alarming rate,.. (8% to 32%) Then they use that to justify abortion...

sadly for those having an abortion they often continue to use that as "birth control"

Of the abortions reported in 1999 to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions. The situation may be even worse than this, because the reports that states make to the CDC are voluntary, and the largest abortion state, California, does not report.

I don't call that progress...

our liberal government created the problem.. and only makes it worse.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Who's next? The elderly? :?


Oh ya, I thought the Left was against the death penalty as a form of capital punishment. :?

That's for criminals. They are okay killing babies.

And don't you remember, you're suppose to take a guy's gun away and turn him back loose when he shoots a rifle at the po po and the peeps. But if a kindergartner points a finger on recess, you kick him out of school. They were thinking about aborting him also (the new post-partum abortion), but just in case he turns out to be a real lunatic and votes Dem, they don't want to act too hasty.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Seeing as being Gay is supposed to be genetic, will liberals also be okay with aborting gay fetuses, when they have developed a DNA test for homosexuality?
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Seeing as being Gay is supposed to be genetic, will liberals also be okay with aborting gay fetuses, when they have developed a DNA test for homosexuality?

Obesity is also an inherited trait and we all know what a strain fat people put on health care providers and the tax payers as well.....heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, etc.

From what I've read, alcohol abuse and dependency also is an inherited trait. Look at the damage and carnage caused by drunks driving around on public roads, not to mention the aggravation of their stupid postings on public forums.

You know, I'm starting to see a silver lining in the abortion thingy.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Wonder if Democrats have ever used children as publicity "Props" when signing a Bill or having a rally for abortion? No???????????????????????
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Just as I figured, Oldtimer has shown no remorse for his out-of-touch stupid statement. :shock: Anyone can mistakenly say something they wished they hadn't, but most people have the courage and conviction to apologize. Oldtimer has never ever apologized, and he certainly isn't about to start now. And that is one of the main reasons why he gets no respect or credibility on this site. :roll:
 

smalltime

Well-known member
I'm sure ther are plentey of gay and lesbien couples who would gladley adopt those unwanted babies.May not be a good option but it sure is better than killing babies to solve ones problems.IMO
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
smalltime said:
I'm sure ther are plentey of gay and lesbien couples who would gladley adopt those unwanted babies.May not be a good option but it sure is better than killing babies to solve ones problems.IMO

Any person that can participate in the killing of a child IS the problem. It solves nothing. Only creates another one in their memory that they have to live with the rest of their life. I often wonder if these people even have a conscience and the same for those who have never had an abortion but stand in favor of it. How can you support something you know absolutely nothing about and have never experienced. To me these are the same type people who can kill in cold blood and never give it a second thought.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
But, if there were more children on welfare, it may have cut into stimulus money funneled to labor unions, laundered to the Democrats.......shudder.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
smalltime said:
I'm sure ther are plentey of gay and lesbien couples who would gladley adopt those unwanted babies.May not be a good option but it sure is better than killing babies to solve ones problems.IMO

Any person that can participate in the killing of a child IS the problem. It solves nothing. Only creates another one in their memory that they have to live with the rest of their life. I often wonder if these people even have a conscience and the same for those who have never had an abortion but stand in favor of it. How can you support something you know absolutely nothing about and have never experienced. To me these are the same type people who can kill in cold blood and never give it a second thought.


They hand them out like candy, and don't ever consider the consequences.

Advocates of "women's health", when it comes to abortion, tend to forget about mental health.


The theory of Post Abortion Syndrome

The main contentions of PAS as a description and theory of abortion psychological sequelae are as follows. First that there is evidence of women post-abortion exhibiting an extreme negative psychological response.
The symptoms are defined as long-lasting and recurring. The symptoms that are said to characterise this response are:

'..sadness/sorrow, depression, anger or guilt, surprise at the intensity of their emotional reaction, preoccupation with the aborted child, a low self-image, repression and discomfort at being around babies or young children, flashbacks of the abortion experience, feelings of 'craziness', thoughts of suicide, nightmares related to the abortion, perceived visitations from the aborted child, hallucinations related to the abortion. The date upon which the child would have been born and anniversaries of both the operation and the 'would-have-been' birthday become focal points for Post Abortion Trauma Syndrome symptoms.'(2)

The second is that this response to abortion should be categorised as a form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Society should perceive PAS as a definable, severe, psychological condition. It should be borne in mind that what is being suggested here is that there is evidence of something akin to psychosis, exhibited by women, which is attributable to termination of pregnancy.

Thirdly that this recognition of the extreme, negative psychological effects of abortion should lead to a refutation of the argument that legal abortion is justified on the grounds of benefit to women's health. In fact, advocates of the theory of PAS argue that the advent of legal abortion has been a set-back for women. They suggest that it has created a situation where thousands women suffer negative psychological consequences as result being able to terminate pregnancy. In Britain, under the 1967 Abortion Act, abortion can be provided legally if two doctors agree 'that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week, and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children'.(3) The proponents of PAS argue that this ground cannot be met, because abortion damages women psychologically. Hence abortion should not be legal on these grounds.

http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_coun3.php
 

hopalong

Well-known member
It is obvious thqt oldtimer is hiding behind some womans skirts on this issiue,,,,kiinda like when his wife was in trouble,,,he4 was in the bar surrounded by women to protect him :roll: :roll:
yep a real man there :wink: :wink:
Now it is killing babies
.....real piece of work oldtime,,you POS a real POS
 

Hereford76

Well-known member
Traveler said:
But, if there were more children on welfare, it may have cut into stimulus money funneled to labor unions, laundered to the Democrats.......shudder.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

not when >50% of the country are OT minded that think and vote the way they do.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
An economic law; If you subsidize something, you get more of it.


And the Dems. want more of it, because they thinkk that subsidizing it will be less costly than taking care of "the welfare babies" and "those black babies, with no fathers".

OT was being honest at least with his post about his thoughts on abortion and welfare.

But what liberals never think about are the unintended consequences.


They deal in emotional responses, without thinking about ALL potential outcomes, and then making a decision.
 

Mike

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Sandhusker said:
An economic law; If you subsidize something, you get more of it.


And the Dems. want more of it, because they thinkk that subsidizing it will be less costly than taking care of "the welfare babies" and "those black babies, with no fathers".

OT was being honest at least with his post about his thoughts on abortion and welfare.

But what liberals never think about are the unintended consequences.


They deal in emotional responses, without thinking about ALL potential outcomes, and then making a decision.

I have no idea why OT wants to kill the unwanted at this young age? At least give them a chance or a little bit of life..............

Why doesn't he want to let them get about 15-16 years old when there's a pretty good chance to know if they'll be productive in life and unwanted or not.

I wonder how he feels about if they don't appear to be the type of productive citizen we need at that age, and if they're still unwanted, then kill them?

He is sick, sick, sick................................
 
Top