tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Unless the children are in the womb, or haven't quite been fully born yet, ie "partially born."

a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one can force getting to use her body. Neither the government, nor a rapist.

seb146 wrote:

Do you believe the women who accused Franken or Rose or Wiener? Do you believe the women who accused Trump or Moore? Why or why not?

He pretty much already said he will believe any flimsy accusation against a liberal/democrat, but won´t believe the accusers of his Führers lot no matter how much corroboration there is.

best regards
Thomas

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me. As for your statement about flimsy accusations against liberals your statement can swing both ways but like you accuse the right of giving a pass to their peeps you are equally ok with giving a pass to liberals. Can't have it both ways I am totally ok with exposing everyone and I'd like to flush them all out. I never hated people in my whole life like politicians.

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Unless the children are in the womb, or haven't quite been fully born yet, ie "partially born."

a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one can force getting to use her body. Neither the government, nor a rapist.

seb146 wrote:

Do you believe the women who accused Franken or Rose or Wiener? Do you believe the women who accused Trump or Moore? Why or why not?

He pretty much already said he will believe any flimsy accusation against a liberal/democrat, but won´t believe the accusers of his Führers lot no matter how much corroboration there is.

best regards
Thomas

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me. As for your statement about flimsy accusations against liberals your statement can swing both ways but like you accuse the right of giving a pass to their peeps you are equally ok with giving a pass to liberals. Can't have it both ways I am totally ok with exposing everyone and I'd like to flush them all out. I never hated people in my whole life like politicians.

So you believe the women who accused Trump and Moore? Where are your calls for them to resign, if you do believe those women?

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me.

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me.

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

Stratosphere, that you, as a man, feel that you must tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body says a lot about you.

Answer me this, while you are answering my other question:

If you do not want people on welfare, why are you not also willing to give women access to birth control so they don't have to go on welfare?

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one can force getting to use her body. Neither the government, nor a rapist.



He pretty much already said he will believe any flimsy accusation against a liberal/democrat, but won´t believe the accusers of his Führers lot no matter how much corroboration there is.

best regards
Thomas

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me. As for your statement about flimsy accusations against liberals your statement can swing both ways but like you accuse the right of giving a pass to their peeps you are equally ok with giving a pass to liberals. Can't have it both ways I am totally ok with exposing everyone and I'd like to flush them all out. I never hated people in my whole life like politicians.

So you believe the women who accused Trump and Moore? Where are your calls for them to resign, if you do believe those women?

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me. As for your statement about flimsy accusations against liberals your statement can swing both ways but like you accuse the right of giving a pass to their peeps you are equally ok with giving a pass to liberals. Can't have it both ways I am totally ok with exposing everyone and I'd like to flush them all out. I never hated people in my whole life like politicians.

So you believe the women who accused Trump and Moore? Where are your calls for them to resign, if you do believe those women?

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

Do you think Franken should resign?

tommy1808 wrote:

But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Brilliant application of "stand your ground" doctrine. Thank you.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me. As for your statement about flimsy accusations against liberals your statement can swing both ways but like you accuse the right of giving a pass to their peeps you are equally ok with giving a pass to liberals. Can't have it both ways I am totally ok with exposing everyone and I'd like to flush them all out. I never hated people in my whole life like politicians.

So you believe the women who accused Trump and Moore? Where are your calls for them to resign, if you do believe those women?

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

And Franken?

akiss20 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So you believe the women who accused Trump and Moore? Where are your calls for them to resign, if you do believe those women?

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

Do you think Franken should resign?

No, I don't think Franken should resign.

I find him amusing.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

akiss20 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

Do you think Franken should resign?

No, I don't think Franken should resign.

I find him amusing.

But what I really find creepy is Uncle Joe's "fondling" of teens, and actual "children".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqgKIpuZbQ

But I'm already sure the MSM has "Normalized" ALL of Uncle Joe Biden's touching as "Innocent". Yeah the MSM, they DO Strain at gnats, and Swallow CAMELS, like Biden and William Clinton.

Biden in 2020 ?? Yeah the MSM is Cool 'cause he's got a "D" after his name.

Very aware of the Colossal Hypocrisy of the Left!!!

I love how Trump keeps referring to Jones as this evil person and how he's gonna be a vote for Pelosi (not sure how) and Schumer (he can always proclaim independence).

How about Jones depicts a message saying that Roy Moore will support McConnell and the Washington establishment if he's elected?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

akiss20 wrote:

Do you think Franken should resign?

No, I don't think Franken should resign.

I find him amusing.

But what I really find creepy is Uncle Joe's "fondling" of teens, and actual "children".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqgKIpuZbQ

But I'm already sure the MSM has "Normalized" ALL of Uncle Joe Biden's touching as "Innocent". Yeah the MSM, they DO Strain at gnats, and Swallow CAMELS, like Biden and William Clinton.

Biden in 2020 ?? Yeah the MSM is Cool 'cause he's got a "D" after his name.

Very aware of the Colossal Hypocrisy of the Left!!!

How hypocritical for "Uncle" Joe Biden to put his hands on someone's shoulders or upper arm. How dare he. Just disgusting.

But, hanging out and speaking highly of a convicted pedophile is normal.

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donal ... e-lawsuit/

Righty wing hypocrisy at it's finest.

Is "Weak on Crime" now the new codeword for "Doing something effective about racially motivated crime"?

best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me.

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

Stratosphere, that you, as a man, feel that you must tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body says a lot about you.

Answer me this, while you are answering my other question:

If you do not want people on welfare, why are you not also willing to give women access to birth control so they don't have to go on welfare?

I would TOTALLY be ok with giving women birth control so they don't have to go on welfare and ESPECIALLY if they are on welfare....

tommy1808 wrote:

Is "Weak on Crime" now the new codeword for "Doing something effective about racially motivated crime"?

best regards
Thomas

"Weak on crime" probably means "he prosecuted white people; maybe the black girls had it coming to them, but I'm not gonna say it because I won't sound racist, even though I can say the tape is edited and declare that it's all fake".

The KKK is revered in AL (and the South generally) just as Starbucks is revered in Seattle: it's not the same without it.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

Stratosphere, that you, as a man, feel that you must tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body says a lot about you.

Answer me this, while you are answering my other question:

If you do not want people on welfare, why are you not also willing to give women access to birth control so they don't have to go on welfare?

I would TOTALLY be ok with giving women birth control so they don't have to go on welfare and ESPECIALLY if they are on welfare....

Why is there such huge opposition to it? One of the things Planned Parenthood does is to provide birth control for low income people. But, they can not be funded because of religious reasons. Even though it would save us all a lot of money in the long run if we just funded them. Besides birth control, they also test for STIs and provide testing for women's health issues for those women who have no health insurance, because health insurance is too damn expensive.

BobPatterson wrote:

Perhaps you fail to really understand the "fairy tale" that is central to the evangelical christian faith.

Oh,I understand perfectly well.

BobPatterson wrote:

The alleged criminal activity of Mr. Moore took place almost 40 years ago. More than enough time for him to have repented and been saved by grace. Since, according to evangelical beliefs, EVERYONE is a sinner, the best you can hope for is a candidate who has repented and been saved. According to this line of reasoning, Moore is not only an acceptable candidate, he is a worthy candidate.

That's the thing, they're all about forgiveness in the case of Roy Moore. Wonder if they would be so forgiving if it were his democratic opponent that was accused of this? My guess is no. That seems to be their thing. Forgiving when it suits them, and fire and brimstone when it suits them.

BobPatterson wrote:

That said, I can understand evangelical christians voting for him and feeling good about doing so.

That's the thing about a lot of evangelicals that bothers me. They will vote for someone like Moore because they think he will he will bring back America back to it's Christian roots. Because they have deluded themselves into thinking that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to deny others the rights they enjoy. All due to their cherry picked interpretation of the bible. And Roy Moore in their mind is going to put a stop to this.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'm guessing that there's a lot more Democratic voting preachers of small and/or rural congregations running off with some young secretary, than Republican voting preachers. Now these instances would not make the nightly news. But the Big Preachers, yes, of course you'd hear about that. And no matter how sensational the Republican voting preacher's scandals are, it's my assumption that there are more scandals overall by preachers that traditionally vote Democratic. That's the stereotype I've come to hold after hearing things here and there over the years.

:

Do you have anything to back that up?

LMP737 wrote:

Do you have anything to back that up?

Obviously not, as he started out by saying:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'm guessing

Facts are not necessary for beliefs, and he believes it so that is all that matters to him.

Tugg

LMP737 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'm guessing that there's a lot more Democratic voting preachers of small and/or rural congregations running off with some young secretary, than Republican voting preachers. Now these instances would not make the nightly news. But the Big Preachers, yes, of course you'd hear about that. And no matter how sensational the Republican voting preacher's scandals are, it's my assumption that there are more scandals overall by preachers that traditionally vote Democratic. That's the stereotype I've come to hold after hearing things here and there over the years.

:

Do you have anything to back that up?

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

I'm guessing you're far too lazy to do it yourself.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I'm guessing that there's a lot more Democratic voting preachers of small and/or rural congregations running off with some young secretary, than Republican voting preachers. Now these instances would not make the nightly news. But the Big Preachers, yes, of course you'd hear about that. And no matter how sensational the Republican voting preacher's scandals are, it's my assumption that there are more scandals overall by preachers that traditionally vote Democratic. That's the stereotype I've come to hold after hearing things here and there over the years.

:

Do you have anything to back that up?

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

An hypothesis, properly formulated, may be tested and is capable of disproof.

A hunch is quite a different matter, but may offer amusement even though only idle speculation.

BobPatterson wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

An hypothesis, properly formulated, may be tested and is capable of disproof.

A hunch is quite a different matter, but may offer amusement even though only idle speculation.

He's quite inaccurate though, it is well known that conservatives and Republican's have a higher divorce rate than libs and Dems. Which means they cheat more.

(Yes I am having fun and doing the same as he is. But I am happy to have someone disprove it)

Tugg

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

This is a paradox. If I disprove it, you'll still say that your "hunch" is correct and discard any and all evidence. This is why today we hear cries of "fake news" and we see a "war on facts".

Funny things...facts. Can never be anything other than what they are.

It's incredible how far the GOP will go to defend and promote pedophiles:
A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... e5073b7517

Tugger wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

An hypothesis, properly formulated, may be tested and is capable of disproof.

A hunch is quite a different matter, but may offer amusement even though only idle speculation.

He's quite inaccurate though, it is well known that conservatives and Republican's have a higher divorce rate than libs and Dems. Which means they cheat more.

(Yes I am having fun and doing the same as he is. But I am happy to have someone disprove it)

Tugg

Ohh Tugg, a higher divorce rate is among those that choose to be "married".
So all the D's "unmarried', but living together don't count, when they split because of infidelity??

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Ohh Tugg, a higher divorce rate is among those that choose to be "married".
So all the D's "unmarried', but living together don't count, when they split because of infidelity??

O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

Nope, that's not the reason (that is just your imagination again, you guess/belief).
You should do some research.

Tugg

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Tugger wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

An hypothesis, properly formulated, may be tested and is capable of disproof.

A hunch is quite a different matter, but may offer amusement even though only idle speculation.

He's quite inaccurate though, it is well known that conservatives and Republican's have a higher divorce rate than libs and Dems. Which means they cheat more.

(Yes I am having fun and doing the same as he is. But I am happy to have someone disprove it)

Tugg

Ohh Tugg, a higher divorce rate is among those that choose to be "married".
So all the D's "unmarried', but living together don't count, when they split because of infidelity??

So what you're saying is Democrats are more likely to be smart enough to not make a commitment unless if they are intent on keeping it? Good to know.

akiss20 wrote:

So what you're saying is Democrats are more likely to be smart enough to not make a commitment unless if they are intent on keeping it? Good to know.

And obviously a much longer planning horizon.

best regards
Thomas

MaverickM11 wrote:

It's incredible how far the GOP will go to defend and promote pedophiles:
A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... e5073b7517

Post reporter Beth Reinhard, who co-wrote the article about Corfman, received a cryptic email early the next morning.

“Roy Moore in Alabama . . . I might know something but I need to keep myself safe. How do we do this?” the apparent tipster wrote under an account with the name “Lindsay James.”

Stands to reason someone a) knew what sort of pig Roy Moore is and b) was prepared to move as soon as it broke.

On Top Project Veritas just conclusively proofed that the WP is doing its job in vetting its sources, making the story even more believable.

best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

It's a hunch based on your own bias. Also it's a terrible argument to try and make. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy, look it up.

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

No a women does NOT have a right to do with her body what she pleases. If she is like a hours from birth you are ok with her killing it? Sorry bro in this country that is totally illegal and even though I am pro choice there are limits even with me.

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

Stratosphere, that you, as a man, feel that you must tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body says a lot about you.

Answer me this, while you are answering my other question:

If you do not want people on welfare, why are you not also willing to give women access to birth control so they don't have to go on welfare?

I somewhat address the issue in the more generic abuse thread, but there are several negative consequences that I believe birth control has had on society that actually increase dependence on welfare rather than reduce it. There are also many health risks that I have learned about from secular sources as far as these go and while I don't believe we should make it illegal, we should be informing women about this.

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

She can do with her body whatever she pleases. The fetus isn't part of her body. Weeks before birth the fetus is viable outside of her body, so it's removal doesn't have the fetus killed.
But of course she has the right that the fetus vacates the premises whenever she feels it is not welcome, just like you can remove any trespasser from your premises, in many places with whatever violence required to do so.
Even decades after birth!

Best regards
Thomas

Stratosphere, that you, as a man, feel that you must tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body says a lot about you.

Answer me this, while you are answering my other question:

If you do not want people on welfare, why are you not also willing to give women access to birth control so they don't have to go on welfare?

I somewhat address the issue in the more generic abuse thread, but there are several negative consequences that I believe birth control has had on society that actually increase dependence on welfare rather than reduce it. There are also many health risks that I have learned about from secular sources as far as these go and while I don't believe we should make it illegal, we should be informing women about this.

This ought to be good...

What negative consequences and health risks?

apodino wrote:

I somewhat address the issue in the more generic abuse thread, but there are several negative consequences that I believe birth control has had on society that actually increase dependence on welfare rather than reduce it.

Yup, in the good old time, before contraception was widely available, young pregnant women simply got forced to marry the father.
If you want single moms to be less dependent on welfare, you may want to consider making the guys pay, if the don't pay, prepay the mother and go after the dad until he has repaid every dime. Go after the dad the same way you go after any other person that is debt. Knock on the door and take car, TV and such stuff away if it is any more than the minimum and sell it off, force him to rent a smaller, cheaper appartment, if that gives him more liquidity. And that goes on until the kid has a job qualification or has way outgrown being a child.
Oh, and if he refuses to pay, hides income that would enable him to pay and so on, toss him in Jail for up to three years.

That is how we do it. And guys somehow turn out to be very careful about not getting a girl pregnant unless they really, really want to.

Oh, the child is of course fully entitelt to the same inheritance as any other kid would be.

There are also many health risks that I have learned about from secular sources as far as these go and while I don't believe we should make it illegal, we should be informing women about this.

We should informing women about it? Each pill comes with this nice little leaflet, that lists even the most fringe side effects. They are informed. Sex ed in school should accomplish the same at an early stage.

Best regards
Thomas

So the Washington Post was the subject of a FOILED conservative sting:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... 9be71a5e5e

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017 ... ore-to-po/


MEANWHILE....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK_SyTicCI

I'm not aware of any US federal definition (law) about what is an abortion, what are the limits, reasons for it, etc. Everything hangs on a supreme court decision.There is a ban on a specific procedure (which is quite ridiculous, politicians and judges deciding on a medical matter...).

Since US politicians can only be "pro-life" or "pro-choice" with no nuance possible, this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Meanwhile in rational countries we have laws, for example in France since the 70's a woman can have an abortion free of charge, without her parents knowing (we're not our parents' slaves), without needing a reason. But only during the first trimester (14 weeks after conception at the latest). After that time, the only reason an abortion is performed is if the life of the mother is in danger, or if the fetus will end up disabled.

This is totally uncontroversial and no politician will even mention the subject during a campaign. No horror stories about women forced to carry out a pregnancy, very few children born in back alleys or other sordid stuff.

As for "going after the father" while in France it's technically possible I disagree with the concept, a woman can choose to have a baby or not (including by lying to the man about birth control without legal consequence), so a man must have the right to choose to care for it or not. I'd rather have the state care for mother and child, and that's pretty much what happens when needed (or not needed, even rich people get quite a bit of help, in the form of greatly reduced taxes for example).

I wouldn't take Germany as an example considering how few babies are born there of German parents.

Aesma wrote:

As for "going after the father" while in France it's technically possible I disagree with the concept, a woman can choose to have a baby or not (including by lying to the man about birth control without legal consequence), so a man must have the right to choose to care for it or not.

Well, he can chose to not care for the kid, he can not chose not to pay for them. The money belongs to the kid, no other party involved has the right to give that money or inheritance away of its behalf.

I also don´t see how a women can lie to me about a condom being on my penis or not, if i don´t use one, that is a, calculated risk i chose to take, and like with any other risk one has to pay up if you get unlucky.

Women can try to lie about their hormonal state, but the fix is not giving men a "f*ck all you want without ever considering the consequences" flatrate, it is making lying in that regard the fraud that it is legally.
But if the father doesn´t have to pay, there is no damage done if she lies ....

I'd rather have the state care for mother and child, and that's pretty much what happens when needed (or not needed, even rich people get quite a bit of help, in the form of greatly reduced taxes for example).

So, a man is to lazy or to cheap to use and buy condoms, and everybody is going to pay for him having fun? Do you also propose that people driving cars without insurance are covered by every other person in the country?

I wouldn't take Germany as an example considering how few babies are born there of German parents.

There is no relation between the two, countries that don´t make fathers pay can have low birthrates too, Taiwan for example.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

I'm guessing you're far too lazy to do it yourself.

Lazy, mmh..

The Rep side of things is not too lazy to keep those Dem(onic) acts unendingly afloat in the press.
No wonder non GOP alleged misdeeds are much more visible.

I think I just heard what Roy Moore's favorite episode of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. is....

From Season 4: "Love Finds Gomer Pyle"

A 15-year-old girl falls in love with Gomer.





R.I.P. Jim Nabors

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

Why are so many on the religious right so hot and heavy about repealing the Johnson Amendment?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

But what I really find creepy is Uncle Joe's "fondling" of teens, and actual "children".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqgKIpuZbQ

I see a video of a ranting fuckwit burbling on incoherently to convince his army of idiot followers to buy his herbal remedies. Not sure how that relates to your claim of Biden fondling teens. Can you give an example or two of somebody who has actually accused him of groping them? Or is the above your best defence of Moore? Says a lot if it is.

zckls04 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

But what I really find creepy is Uncle Joe's "fondling" of teens, and actual "children".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWqgKIpuZbQ

I see a video of a ranting fuckwit burbling on incoherently to convince his army of idiot followers to buy his herbal remedies. Not sure how that relates to your claim of Biden fondling teens. Can you give an example or two of somebody who has actually accused him of groping them? Or is the above your best defence of Moore? Says a lot if it is.

Anyone who posts links to Alex Jones loses any semblance on credibility.

LMP737 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

Why are so many on the religious right so hot and heavy about repealing the Johnson Amendment?

Something about freedom of religious speech, I suspect.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

It's a hunch.

I welcome someone to disprove it.

Why are so many on the religious right so hot and heavy about repealing the Johnson Amendment?

Something about freedom of religious speech, I suspect.

Yes, removing in for everybody that isn't a fundamentalist Christian, you are right.

Best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

What does Moore have to resign for (yet)?

Why is that so hard to understand???

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Something about freedom of religious speech, I suspect.

No, my guess is so they can force their views down other peoples throats.

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

What does Moore have to resign for (yet)?

Why is that so hard to understand???

Moore certainly has been convicted of sexuality impropriety with a minor. Just not, due to statute of limitations, in a court of law.

And also, perhaps probably, not by an electorate that is without moral compass.

I hope that I am wrong about the majority of Alabama voters.

BobPatterson wrote:

jetero wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

I don't think either Trump of Moore should resign. Neither have been convicted of any crime.

Why is that so hard to understand???

What does Moore have to resign for (yet)?

Why is that so hard to understand???

Moore certainly has been convicted of sexuality impropriety with a minor. Just not, due to statute of limitations, in a court of law.

And also, perhaps probably, not by an electorate that is without moral compass.

I hope that I am wrong about the majority of Alabama voters.

I fear you and I are going to be very disappointed in the intelligence and morality of those voters.

A vote is about the future and not the past.