Originally posted by: alchemize
Ahh, I get it. You can't grasp the difference between supporting a woman's right to chose and supporting abortion itself. They are not at all the same thing. The OP questions why Bush opposes killing the unborn yet supports killing innocent children in Iraq. Both examples involve killing. You, on the other hand, are trying to suggest that killing and allowing freedom of choice by others are intertwined. They are not.
Ah I see. SO the comparison is only valid because in your mind, when a woman commits an abortion, it isn't taking a life. Since it is her "right" according to you, well then that makes everything different. :roll: Well at least you are
consistently a partisan hack.
:roll:
One reason these threads turn into flame-fests is because people like you work so diligently to avoid understanding simple concepts expressed in clear English.
"You can't grasp the difference between supporting a woman's right to chose and supporting abortion itself. They are not at all the same thing." I assume you claim to support free speech, true? Does that mean you agree with everything someone says while enjoying free speech? Obviously not. The same principle applies to a woman's right to choose. The fact that I (and millions of others) support the right to chose, Freedom of Choice as it were,
does not mean we automatically support the actions she chooses to take. They are two separate issues.
Now, instead of skimming over what I just said while looking for a seed for your next attack, take a moment to comprehend what I said. At a minimum, you might attack what I actually said instead of launching yet another straw man or red herring.
If you do not like being insulted, I suggest you refrain from insulting others.
And I suggest the same of you,
asshat
I'm not the one whining about being insulted. You were.
For the record, "down on the farm" is not a quote from me, nor have I ever called you a "fagg" [sic] (or i love you, for that matter), or a child rapist. Continuing to misrepresent my words only discredits you.
That's right. You don't call anyone specifically that. You instead generalize large populations as being child molesters and have sex with farm animals. I stand corrected.
Still obsessing over that? I must have struck a nerve. Were you an alter boy, or did you not understand that when I referred to "livestock", I meant the literal, four-legged kind, not the bleating Bushie kind?
You continue to misreprent that comment as I explained in that thread. If you wish to discuss it, I suggest you show the integrity to take it back to that thread instead of stalking me in unrelated threads.
Retorting to your "king of hypocrisy" insult with a matching "queen" barb of my own does not necessarily suggest you are gay. It mostly suggests you're a girl, though in context it was obviously not meant to be interpreted literally. The same applies to "Bush fluffing". It is a figurative expression describing your fawning support for everything Bush says and does. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Is that how it is? Total utter
liar. You know exactly that fluffer is used in context on this board on every single post (usually coming from tolerant liberals unsuprisingly)
Yep, you got me. When I refer to Bush fluffers, I mean to suggest that millions of you are literally performing oral sex on the President. Idiot.
:roll:
You know this, of course, but you need diversionary attacks to avoid addressing my points and acknowledging your trolling.
Your points? have you made a point yet besides attack me?
Yes:
1. Your responses to IHateMyJob2004 were straw man arguments.
2. Both of the OP's observations were self-evidently true, and needed no further support.
3. It is valid to question the consistency of opposition to killing the unborn but support of killing Iraqi children.
4. It is nonsensical to question the consistency of supporting a woman's right to choose with some hypothetical Democrat's support of bombing children. It is also another straw man.
5. You are confused about why #4 is true.
6. You misrepresented my words and refused to address points I raised, or that the OP raised.
Is that clear enough for you? Any other questions?
Stuff it. I answered your questions. My answers were in the parts of my quote you conveniently omitted from your reply. Instead, you focused solely on a couple of little bits you could use to attack and divert. In short, you did exactly what I predicted, "Which is exactly what I expect you to do in this thread, continuing to attack and divert without ever answering the OP's question." Funny that you cut that from your quote as well.
Your continued misrepresentation of others' posts and your refusal to discuss the OP makes you a liar, a coward, and a USDA-certified prime troll in my book. (Note that "USDA-certifed prime" is also not meant to be taken literally, just to preempt you next diversionary attack. Feel free to try to spin it into a homosexual reference as well, however.)
Nothing cut here. Then you are an
EU certified prime troll in my book
Please spare me your
lies, lies, and lies. We all know what you were doing. Typical. But what do I care, call me anthing you want. Just don't be a little shaved pussy (cat) and come out and say it outright next time.
:roll:
Now, care to answer ANY of my questions?
1. "So are you saying that if you are against abortion, then you must be a pacifist?"
2. "Or are you saying that Bush is directly and intentionally targeting children, and directly ordering the military to do so?"
3. "Is it permissable then to be pro-choice, but to drop 500lb bombs on children?" I think you answered this one "yes".
4. "Is that how you justify when a democrat drops 500lb bombs on children?"
1. No. Like the OP, I question how one reconciles opposition to killing the unborn with support for killing innocent Iraqi children. It is a question you have yet to address.
2. Our armed forces are currently killing innocent people -- including children -- by the hundreds. Bush put the military into the situation in Iraq. As Commander in Chief, he is responsible for their actions.
3. It is obviously possible. It is also irrelevant.
4. That is a straw man. I do not support anyone indiscriminately bombing children, regardless of party affiliation. Are you suggesting that you do?
Facebook
Twitter