Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Murder, or late term abortion ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

    I heard some idiot liberal announce that men shouldn't be voting on what women get to do with their bodies...shouldn't the same apply to poor people voting on what other people get to do with their own money...And where do trannies fit into this increasingly idiotic intersectional foolishness would it be a hate crime to make that argument about a pro-life Male-to-Female Tranny?
    Idiot might have a point if there weren't another persons body involved.

    Typical of idiots though, they want to pretend reality isn't reality.

    îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


    • #77
      Some say the issue of killing babies will be a cause for civil war !?

      Why would people fight over killing innocent people ?

      .. it makes no sense at all.

      Does it ?

      It's natural when masses of people have accepted evil things, they then turn to evil, if these practices are taken from them

      Will we put a stop to killing our own babies ?

      It hasn't happened, probably won't. But if it does . . .

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      A civil war is coming to America, only this time, it will be abortion, rather than slavery, that divides the nation.

      And while I hope will all my heart that it will not be a physically violent war, the ideological conflict will certainly be violent and intense.

      We witnessed some of this during the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh, when the opposition to his confirmation was fierce to the point of screaming and pounding at the Senate's doors.

      This brought to my mind the famous line, "Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned," based on which I wrote an article titled, "Prepare for the Wrath of the Pro-Abortion Militants."

      https://stream.org/prepare-wrath-pro...ion-militants/

      The article ended by saying "that hell hath no fury like that of the militant pro-abortionists."

      The very same day my article was posted on the Stream, Jennifer Hartline posted an article on that same website, titled, "It's Not Kavanaugh. It's Roe." Her article ended by saying, "They hate Kavanaugh because they love abortion and he does not. Hell hath no fury like 'women's rights' scorned."

      We were hearing the same message!

      This is part of what I refer to as Jezebel's War with America (the title of my forthcoming book), where the forces of radical feminism come together with the extreme pro-abortion movement (among other spiritual and cultural forces) in an attempt destroy America.

      The only way to describe this is war.

      Confirmation for this comes from the response to Alabama's pro-life bill, just passed by the Senate.

      As expected, the reaction from the left has been fierce and intense.


      Note the highlighted words in these tweets and comments:

      "Alabama just passed a near-total ban on abortion. No exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors could face 99 years in prison for providing abortions. This is a war on women, and it is time to fight like hell." (Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand)

      "This ban is dangerous and exceptionally cruel – and the bill's authors want to use it to overturn Roe v. Wade. I've lived in that America and let me tell you: We are not going back – not now, not ever. We will fight this. And we will win." (Sen. Elizabeth Warren)

      "Women's rights are under attack. This relentless and cruel Republican assault on women's health is designed to force a court battle to destroy Roe v. Wade. Democrats will be ready to defend health care and women's reproductive freedom." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi)


      The reaction from Hollywood echoed the sentiments of Washington:

      According to John Legend, "These statehouses are waging all-out war on women and their right to control their reproductive decisions. This is awful."

      Alyssa Milano tweeted, "There have been nearly 30 bans on abortion introduced, passed, or signed into law in statehouses around the country this year alone. This is Trump's anti-choice agenda and part of the GOP's war on women."

      On Instagram, Tracie Lee Ross, with 6.5 million followers, wrote, "WE MUST FIGHT ~ this is terrifying."

      And John Cusack tweeted, "This only ends with impeachment – and people in the streets."

      As summed up by author Amber Tamblyn, "Good morning, women. Make no mistake. This is war."

      Do we need this spelled out any more clearly? We are being told that those who stand for Roe v. Wade will fight like hell, that there will be people in the streets, that this is a battle, a war. We dare not miss the meaning.

      Again, I fervently hope that this is not a physically violent war. I sincerely hope there will not be violent attacks by pro-abortion extremists leading to retaliation by those being attacked. (By definition, if you are pro-life, you will not seek to take the life of an innocent person.)

      But if Trump's election could stir massive women marches with Madonna expressing her desire to blow up the White House, what will the overturning of Roe v. Wade bring about? (This is part of the reason I refer to all this as "Jezebel's war with America.")

      We must also be reminded by how heartless the pro-abortion movement can be, as represented by this tweet from "comedian" Michelle Wolf: "Do what the Alabama government refuses to do: help women by donating to the https://yellowhammerfund.org. Donating is as easy as flicking an embryo out of a uterus should be" (my emphasis).

      Yes, a tiny baby is just something to be "flicked"!

      If this is how the left views a helpless baby in the womb, how will it view those who seek to overturn Roe v. Wade?

      Recently, there has been an uptick of physical attacks on peaceful pro-lifers. (See here and here and here for examples.) And it is likely that such attacks will only increase in the days ahead.


      https://www.foxnews.com/world/pro-li...vist-on-campus

      https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...-assault-19034

      https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=12204

      All the more reason, then, that we keep working to change hearts and minds, that we pray for divine intervention, and that we reply with calmness and measured speech rather than angry rhetoric of our own.

      A civil war is certain. The only thing to be determined is how bloody it will be. Much of that depends on us. Let us pursue the cause of life.

      https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/...-over-abortion

      ================================================== ================================================

      Prepare for the Wrath of the Pro-Abortion Militants

      “Regardless of the charges against Justice Kavanaugh, this much is absolutely clear. The frenzied attempt to try to keep him out of the Supreme Court is simply a battle for the ‘right’ to abort babies in the womb. That’s the bottom line.”

      Similar sentiments were expressed by Brandon Morse, writing on RedState.com:

      The whole reason Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is in the crosshairs of a sexual assault allegation, and a media circus is ensuing, is because the left is 100 percent focused on making sure their ability to abort children and profit from it goes uninterrupted. They can pretend it’s about honor and making sure an attempted rapist doesn’t get a seat on the highest court in the land, but the left cares very little about sexual assault or abuse.

      Morse again, “This is about Planned Parenthood’s ability to keep the money wheel flowing for the Democrats. This is about keeping a narrative alive that without abortion, America would fall apart.”

      Yes, “Democrats are so desperate to keep abortion alive and well in the United States that they’re willing to paint an innocent man as the worst kind of person so that they can continue killing children without trouble.”

      And what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned? What would happen if “abortion rights” were severely restricted (or entirely removed) from state after state?

      All hell would break loose on the streets. Fierce protests would arise. Things would get ugly overnight – and by ugly, I mean very ugly.

      A headline from July 12, 2013 on Townhall.com read, “Bricks and Tampons Intended to be Thrown at Pro-Life Lawmakers Confiscated by Police. UPDATE: Jars of Feces Too.”


      [ Monkeys in a zoo throw feces too ! Now we know what kind of people they are !! ]

      The accompanying article, written by Katie Pavlich, stated that, “Apparently chanting ‘hail Satan,’ ‘f*ck the church,’ ‘bro-choice’ and holding signs that say ‘hoes before embryos’ just wasn’t enough for pro-abortion protestors in Texas. According to reports on the ground, police have confiscated bricks, tampons, pads and condoms protestors planned to throw at pro-life lawmakers.”

      [ infant sacrifice is a very old Satanic practice. No surprises here. ]

      Fast forward to October 17, 2017, and a headline on LifeNews stated, “Topless Feminists Throw Firebombs, Tampons and Feces at a Catholic Church to Protest Abortion.” (This took place in Argentina.)

      Are you seeing a pattern?

      I ask again: What happens if Roe v. Wade gets overturned? What can we expect?

      We can expect fury. We can expect feces. We can expect vitriol. We can expect vandalism. We can expect violence.

      ...

      ...most of the women (and men) raging for the “right” to abort babies do so ideologically. Among them are devout feminists (although the pioneer feminists were reportedly anti-abortion). Among them are a large percentage of atheists. (According to a recent Pew Research report, 87 percent of atheists feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.)


      Among them are LGBT activists, like those featured in this story describing, “How Queer Women and Nonbinary People Led the Fight to Secure Abortion Rights in Ireland.” (According to the congratulatory article, there is a clear “connection between LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive rights.”)

      Among them are Satanists, like those who led a battle for “abortion rights” in Missouri. Yes, these Satanists claimed that the “rules in Missouri’s strict abortion law violate their religious beliefs.”

      This is quite the coalition.


      [ infant sacrifice is a very old Satanic practice. No surprises that Satanists support the Satanic.... killing the innocent ]

      https://stream.org/prepare-wrath-pro...ion-militants/



      "The Devil is crafty, indeed.
      He captures us through the things that make us most human. Lust. Pride. Anger. Avarice. Envy. Sloth. Gluttony.
      These we must guard against, just as the Lord warned us we should
      ." - Dead Run, E. Spindler

      îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


      • #78
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Idiot might have a point if there weren't another persons body involved.

        Typical of idiots though, they want to pretend reality isn't reality.
        Or how about, nobody who has been born should be making decisions about ending the life of anyone who hasn't been.

        îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


        • #79
          Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

          Or how about, nobody who has been born should be making decisions about ending the life of anyone who hasn't been.
          Bu but but but but a womans body and and and and her rights to her body and and and and ... ummmmmmmmmm.....

          Abortion is is is it's it's it's in the Constitution and and
          ....

          ... the morons want to continue being able to murder infants.

          These people are sick.

          Read at the link below how these dimwits are responding LOL ... if you think my above parody is over the top....


          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          The decision by Alabama lawmakers and the governor to outlaw almost all abortions is triggering abortion advocates.

          ......

          https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/alabama-...ion-advocates/

          îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


          • #80
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Bu but but but but a womans body and and and and her rights to her body and and and and ... ummmmmmmmmm.....

            Abortion is is is it's it's it's in the Constitution and and
            ....

            ... the morons want to continue being able to murder infants.

            These people are sick.

            Read at the link below how these dimwits are responding LOL ... if you think my above parody is over the top....


            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            The decision by Alabama lawmakers and the governor to outlaw almost all abortions is triggering abortion advocates.

            ......

            https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/alabama-...ion-advocates/
            The left is actually gleeful over the Alabama law, because they think it is sure to be struck down by the Supreme Court, thus saving Roe. The problem with that is that this law will not arrive before the Supreme Court in a vacuum (or on its own). There is ZERO doubt that challenges to laws in multiple states will be bundled and heard concurrently by the court. That gives them the opportunity to uphold many very restrictive laws (effectively overturning Roe), while rejecting the most comprehensive, providing cover and giving the appearance of a Solomonic ruling overall.

            îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


            • #81
              Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
              The left is actually gleeful over the Alabama law, because they think it is sure to be struck down by the Supreme Court, thus saving Roe. The problem with that is that this law will not arrive before the Supreme Court in a vacuum (or on its own). There is ZERO doubt that challenges to laws in multiple states will be bundled and heard concurrently by the court. That gives them the opportunity to uphold many very restrictive laws (effectively overturning Roe), while rejecting the most comprehensive, providing cover and giving the appearance of a Solomonic ruling overall.
              Maybe it's a distraction ?

              If they can be kept ranting, raving and marching around like Beavis & Butthead on LSD about "abortion", maybe the administration can get some other important work accomplished.

              While the idiots are fuming and kept away from everything else LOL

              îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


              • #82
                Killing the unborn

                The death worship & racism of liberals exposed again.

                It's time to get rid of it.

                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                JESSE LEE PETERSON

                Cowardly men stand aside as radical feminists promote death under the pretense that they care about “women’s health,” the “woman’s body” and the “woman’s choice.”

                In reality, these selfish, evil people only care about money, convenience, and their own egotistical ideology of hate.

                Liberals hate white men and they hate children. While they pretend to care about “people of color” and women, they hate them as well, exploiting their weakness for political gain.

                The 46-year holocaust targeting unborn children has taken a toll of over 60 million babies’ lives. Untold numbers of distraught fathers and mothers are tortured by the grief and trauma at their children’s violent death.

                Some never recover from the guilt and shame for taking part in this horror, having been lied to by radical organizations like Planned Parenthood.

                ...

                Democrats thrive on the immorality and irresponsibility of the people, and especially black people.

                They love for people to suffer from “poverty” and violence, and they love to stoke black anger, women’s anger, Hispanic anger.

                They push the attack on white men, and rejoice when young men lash out and commit mass shootings.

                Democrats are about control, but they cannot control a moral people. Democrats have to make people angry and immoral in order to assume power over them. So they fight for the “right” to destroy lives and present slavery to sin as “freedom” to “choose.”

                It’s going to take logical men,.. standing up with courage to make logical decisions to finally end this mass murder.

                Stand up to the wicked wolves in sheep’s clothing who call themselves “pro-choice,” and stop stepping aside as though this is only a “women’s issue.”

                Men should lead this fight, not shrink back and allow women to take over – which destroyed the black community.

                False black leaders and liberal women are having a hissy fit about the Alabama law. Other states are passing laws attacking the rampant scourge of abortion. The anti-American organization ACLU is preparing a court battle against the law, likely to reach the Supreme Court.

                The only way to win this spiritual battle is for men to wake up, overcome fear and anger, return to God and become perfect. Men should overcome their weakness toward women by forgiving their mothers, returning to their fathers, and thereby coming alive spiritually. Pray without ceasing, know thyself and repent. Then you can have the right relationship with women, stop having sex outside marriage, and lead with authority as Christ leads you. If men set the example, and speak out against evil, we can end the holocaust on the unborn.


                https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/end-the-...on-the-unborn/

                îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                • #83
                  In 1985, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the following about the 1973 roe V wade decision on abortion

                  ...the "Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."

                  In 2005 she said;

                  "in 1973, the law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law - even the most liberal - as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way the courts generally work."

                  ....


                  "The notion that "[a]bortion is a constitutional right," as Bernie Sanders tweeted in the wake of Alabama’s new abortion legislation, is legally flimsy at best, and entirely made-up at likeliest, considering that even the staunchest supporters of progressive social positions often find themselves having to admit that no such right was ever enumerated in the Constitution."

                  "..the Constitution gave us a formula to navigate this issue, and it is best handled state-to-state rather than being "irrevocably fixed" by the Supreme Court. If the federal government is to allow or forbid abortion, it must be allowed to do so only by Constitutional Amendment. Insofar as the states comprising these United States cannot agree to do one or the other at the Congressional level, that Amendment is not in the foreseeable future, and therefore, it is still best left to the states to decide.
                  "

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  We should begin by stating the obvious: Roe v. Wade was an errant ruling by the Supreme Court, and one which has rightfully earned “public opposition and academic criticism” because the “Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”

                  That’s not my framing of the mistake made in the Roe decision, mind you. Those are the words of none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, uttered in 1985. And as late as 2005, even she acknowledged that “in 1973, the law was changing. Women were lobbying around that issue. The Supreme Court stopped all that by deeming every law – even the most liberal – as unconstitutional. That seemed to me not the way the courts generally work.”

                  Anyone who harbors an ounce of honesty must admit that these statements by the famously progressive justice are accurate. As MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos recently observed:

                  [W]e have known since the ‘70s that Roe v. Wade stands on a weak foundational basis. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, Roe v. Wade is really about, do we have an individual, fundamental – do women have a privacy right in the Constitution that overrides state legislatures’ abilities to make laws affecting abortion? The bottom line is, that even if you are pro-choice, [sic] the right to privacy does not exist, either in the history or the text of the Constitution, which is why Roe v. Wade has always been ripe to be overturned.

                  MSNBC Host Joe Scarborough, rather than being aghast at such a heretical observation, told Cevallos that his comments are “interesting” because “Mika [Brzezinski] and I were talking about it” after the news of Alabama’s new restrictive abortion legislation broke, he said, and even Scarborough’s constitutional law professor, “who was very progressive,” said, “though I agree with the conclusion of Roe, it’s a terribly written case, and its logic is baffling at times.”

                  Its logic was certainly baffling to Justice Byron White, who observed in his dissenting opinion in 1973 that the Court had “simply fashion[ed] and announce[d] a new Constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invest[ed] that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.”

                  There’s a theme here which anyone should be able to notice.

                  The notion that “[a]bortion is a constitutional right,” as Bernie Sanders tweeted in the wake of Alabama’s new abortion legislation, is legally flimsy at best, and entirely made-up at likeliest, considering that even the staunchest supporters of progressive social positions often find themselves having to admit that no such right was ever enumerated in the Constitution.

                  So here we are, at the crossroads of a national crisis that probably would never have existed without the unwarranted and unsubstantiated judicial activism of 1973.

                  Ginsburg alluded to that fact in 2005. Laws were changing by 1973, as state laws are wont to do as the culture changes. But these changes were occurring at the state level, as the Constitution intended.

                  Presciently, the late Antonin Scalia explained, in his dissenting opinion on Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, precisely how and why Roe has created these current circumstances, where political sentiments on this issue have pulled toward the ideological poles in an all-or-nothing national debate that is ultimately to be settled by nine Supreme Court justices.

                  Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue – as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty – but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level. As with many other issues, the division of sentiment within each State was not a closely balanced as it was among the population of the Nation as a whole, meaning not only that more people would be satisfied with the results of state by state resolution, but also that those results would be more stable. Pre-Roe, moreover, political compromise was possible.

                  Roe’s mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the comprises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level… [t]o portray Roe as the statesmanlike “settlement” of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing short of Orwellian. Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since.

                  His point is brilliantly made, and time has only confirmed his wisdom. New York has now passed abortion legislation that is so open-ended that it would allow a doctor to legally deny medical assistance to a living child, outside of the mother’s womb, if that child survives an abortion attempt. Alabama has now crafted a law which is the polar opposite of that law, effectively outlawing nearly all abortion. Since the “division of sentiment” on the issue of abortion in New York is not the same as Alabama, it seems only obvious that “more people would be satisfied” if each respective state were allowed to craft its own laws on the matter. Applying the Alabama law to New York might be every bit as disagreeable to New Yorkers as applying the New York law to Alabama would be disagreeable to the people of Alabama.

                  And clearly, Alabama’s law is a direct challenge to the Court’s previous rulings protecting Roe v. Wade on the principle of stare decisis, which demands that, however wrong the conclusion may have been, it is “settled precedent” determined by the Court, as Justice Sotomayor describes it.

                  That’s a ridiculous foundation for establishing one’s judicial practice, to be sure. It’s doubly ridiculous when one considers that progressive justices like Sotomayor would like nothing more than to reverse precedent on, say, the Heller decision of 2008.

                  But while even the nine justices, like all Americans, may have moral convictions around the abortion debate, we look to them to answer this question for us. Scalia was correct in observing that Roe has “obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices” to the Supreme Court. If you doubt that fact, consider that opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s selection to the Court centered around fears that he would elect to overturn the terrible decision made in Roe.

                  To invoke Ginsburg, leaving such a weighty moral decision in the hands of nine individuals of the Court to decide for all Americans seems to me “not the way the Courts generally work.

                  To invoke Abraham Lincoln:

                  The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the Supreme Court… the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

                  A fierce opponent of the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, Lincoln did not challenge the Supreme Court as a federal institution, but was challenging the principle of stare decisis, evident by the word “irrevocably” in the above quote. “[W]e believe the Dred Scott decision is erroneous,” he said. “We know the Court that made it, has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it over-rule this.”

                  In short, the Constitution gave us a formula to navigate this issue, and it is best handled state-to-state rather than being “irrevocably fixed” by the Supreme Court.

                  If the federal government is to allow or forbid abortion, it must be allowed to do so only by Constitutional Amendment. Insofar as the states comprising these United States cannot agree to do one or the other at the Congressional level, that Amendment is not in the foreseeable future, and therefore, it is still best left to the states to decide.

                  Two things are certain. First, the national debate over abortion will continue, whatever the result of the coming Supreme Court decision on any new abortion legislation like Alabama’s. Secondly, what is best for every citizen of every state is not best decided by the nine judges of the Supreme Court, whoever they may be. So, even though “we disagree” with the decision in Roe v. Wade, we must “do what we can” to have the Court overrule that terrible mistake that has left more 60 million legally killed unborn babies in its horrifying wake.


                  https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...all_along.html

                  îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?


                  • #84
                    We have seen these word games played on us for a long time

                    It amounts to nothing more than a clever, if creative, way of lying to people

                    That's why the following writer refers to them as "weasel words"

                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    We are awash in weasel words, that is, euphemisms meant to distract us from reality.

                    The most obvious ones are replacing homosexuality with "gay," taxes with "revenue," spending with "investments," sexual confusion with "gender identity" and abortion with "choice." Actually, abortion has a whole set of weasel terms.

                    The idea behind the onslaught of weasel verbiage is to create an unstoppable "free-stuff army" (free abortions, free health care, free college tuition, free income, etc.) to overwhelm productive citizens, create one-party states and eventually a one-party nation.


                    Euphemism: "an innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant."

                    The term "reproductive health" now means abortion. It also conveys the idea that women have the "right" to force other people to pay for their birth control and abortions.

                    Women already had the "right to reproductive health care." Nobody was stopping women from getting pregnant, having babies or getting prenatal care or acquiring birth control devices or drugs.

                    ..there's confusion over just what constitutes a "right." In the name of economic equality, progressives (i.e., socialists) insist that poor women have the right to free birth control and free abortions. But having a right to do something or acquire something is not the same as forcing others to pay for it.

                    This whole business of "rights" and even "freedom" has become distorted into a grab bag of demands for goods provided by others.

                    Declaring health care to be a "right" implies that government must seize control of health care to ensure "free" services for all, especially abortion.

                    Same with groceries, education, rent, child care, you name it. Why not cars and televisions? Or cell phones? Wait. We already have that. More than 20 million "Obamaphones"

                    The idea behind all this weasel verbiage is to create an unstoppable free-stuff army to overwhelm productive citizens, create one-party states and eventually a one-party nation. With Democratic hegemony comes ideological conformity.

                    In socialist countries, "freedom" means having elites micromanage the rest of the population. They get there by promising free abortions, free income (even for those "unwilling to work") and lots of other free stuff.

                    Eventually, anyone who doesn't go along gets a "free" trip – to the nearest gulag.


                    https://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/...h-weasel-words

                    îä îëéìåú äçãùåú?

                    Working...
                    X