https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1640467617982091264
Is it any wonder a week after this "Day of Vengeance" we have a Transgender shooter gunning down innocent Christian children?
The organizers of this event need to be held accountable.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
By that link, Trump should be held accountable for January for the 6th - and his role in inciting it. But of course you have different standards there.
shareHe’s a MAGA zombie, stuck in the rabbit hole forever
shareYou really should take your head out of your ass before you post
shareHe won't.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
He wont be taking anything out of his ass until there is something of equal or greater size to replace it.
share[deleted]
Trump has nothing to do with this....lmao trump trump trump.
How've you been, immattj? Can't help but to continue to stalk me, I see...
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
I never said that Trump did have anything to do with it. I was making a point of comparison.
>How've you been, immattj? Can't help but to continue to stalk me, I see...
Who the hell is "immattj"? Why do you all assume anyone who publicly criticises something you say is just another user using another account?
Trump was already investigated and impeached. All we are suggesting is that Diaper Joe gets equal treatment under the law, but it won’t happen because we have a two tiered justice system that systematically favors DemoKKKrats.
shareI'm still new to the topic.
Have we confirmed the shooter's motivations?
Yup, manifesto and all...
https://timcast.com/news/breaking-police-confirm-nashville-shooter-identified-as-transgender-wrote-manifesto/
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
How fucked up do you have to be to shoot three nine year olds???
Typical democrat alphabet nut.
When did I say that this event was justified?
shareThe time line adds up...
Laws in TN change -> Day of Vengence "Rally" -> A bunch of kids die from a TransShooter.
Yeah, the motive is pretty clear. They hate Christians, and are now killing them in cold blood.
https://timcast.com/news/breaking-police-confirm-nashville-shooter-identified-as-transgender-wrote-manifesto/
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
So one person now defines an entire community? You think every transperson wants Christians dead?
shareThere is a prejudice against trannies here in America so they are going to make this a Tranny vs Christian issue.
It is an individual thing although I do think of trannies as being mentally ill so there is that.
It does not help their cause even though this was just one of theirs that did this.
It is going to bring up those feelings of prejudice and fear of them.
Overall I blame this one person on it as well as guns because without guns she would not have been able to do this.
I thought Christians were the violent, irrational ones? That's what school, the news, and Hollywood has told me my entire life. Have I been misinformed?
shareHow do you know the person voted Dem?
OK let's play your game.
Repubs. and Cons are more likely to buy guns therefore they are more likely to commit crimes with them.
So we could say that Repubs also did mass shootings in killing kids in schools.
Does the voting habits or political leaning of any criminal really matter?
That is not the place to put the blame.
Hey stupid, law abiding citizen do not commit crimes.
Stay on topic, we're discussing a single person and a singular event. I know it's hard for liberals to stay on topic but try. I hate to assume but I think it's pretty same to do so in this case, that the person is a liberal. They obviously believed the lies they were told about recent legislation that was passed. They obviously took to the brainwashing that led them to commit a heinous act of violence against a Christian school.
It is liberal policies that create these monsters. It's the liberal media that incentivizes and immortalizes them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
Did right-wing legislation and rhetoric create this monster?
"Hey stupid, law abiding citizen do not commit crimes."
Hey stupid, criminals use legally bought guns, as this tranny did in this case and among those are Repubs. and Cons.
You cannot say that there are never any Repub. criminals.
Never.
Bad guys come from all political backgrounds.
"They obviously believed the lies they were told about recent legislation that was passed."
"They obviously took to the brainwashing that led them to commit a heinous act of violence against a Christian school."
Obviously?
LOL
What evidence do you have to back up that claim that leaves no doubt and makes it obvious?
Just more rantings from a crackpot drama queen making up all sorts of BS.
Trans people are OPPRESSED. Sadly, OPPRESSION can often manifest itself in violence.
That's why the US needs to remove every single gun from every single private citizen in the US. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for any private citizen to be carrying a fucking weapon. NO EXCUSE. 😠
But, yes, the sad truth is ALL people with access to guns, whether they be white, Black, male, female, conservative, liberal, old, young, straight, bi, gay, trans, cis, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, atheist, and so on, are a fucking THREAT.
WAKE THE FUCK UP people. It's the GUNS that is the problem. 😠
Why were there gun clubs in High Schools before the 1980s?
Why is there a strong correlation between the introduction of no-fault divorce, the welfare state, and the rise in mass shootings?
Keep lying to yourself its the guns...
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
"Keep lying to yourself its the guns..."
Oh, my bad, I guess they must be killing scores of people with their *fists*, right? Guns had nothing to do with these deaths... 🙄🤦♂️
And how the fuck does a non-acrimonious divorce make anything worse? How the fuck does people being supported from falling into complete poverty make anything worse?
Aren't you the clueless moron who said he was a 'centrist'? So far, you're more far-right than a lot of people who are self-proclaimed conservatives/right-wingers. You've said NOTHING remotely centrist, or left-wing to balance out your anti-trans, anti-immigrant, anti welfare agenda.
I agree.
shareNo, it’s not ” the GUNS that is the problem.” It’s the one pulling the trigger. I would be curious about what you would do if confronted with any of the following situations:
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/11-more-cases-which-responsible-gun-owners-saved-lives
https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
Home invasions are on the increase. The thugs are invading whether the homeowners are home or not. They are aware they can invade, do the crime and be gone before the police arrive. It takes 5 seconds for home invaders to breach the average door, and minutes to do the crime which could lead to murder.
DemoKKKrats are some sick people, they literally think you deserve to die if you aren’t in their demographic.
shareWelcome to the Dementia Joe democrat party. Also Joe likes chocolate chip ice cream.
shareEvidence please
share3 dead adults and 3 dead children in TN for starters...
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
So all Democrats support that, do they? The claim was that "they literally think you deserve to die if you aren't in their demographic"
shareJust listen to Diaper Joe’s speech where he told his mob to kill “MAGA” Republicans and sure enough a far left radical murdered an unarmed teenager who was a “MAGA” Republican by running him over in his car.
shareSource this speech please, and source this leftist running over someone in a car.
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJWM3tbTsV0
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/north-dakota-run-over-car-teenager-b2172662.html
Where did Biden tell his "mob" to kill anyone here?
shareHe said “MAGA Republicans” were extreme and a threat to democracy. When you have a cult leader saying that and when the far left mob is as crazy as they are there is literally no other choice but to kill them.
Diaper Joe murdered Cayler Ellingson
>He said “MAGA Republicans” were extreme and a threat to democracy. When you have a cult leader saying that and when the far left mob is as crazy as they are there is literally no other choice but to kill them.
That's not a call to death. That's your hateful interpretation of what he said.
You are again indulging in your fascism and looking for excuses to arrest and execute political opponents. Because you are a fascist who wants a one-party state where only Republicans are allowed to hold political office.
It’s indeed a call to death, when you have a president spreading lies like that there is literally no other choice but to kill them.
Diaper Joe is a murderer.
>It’s indeed a call to death, when you have a president spreading lies like that there is literally no other choice but to kill them.
So you continue to show your bloodthirsty fascism. And what lies? I believe that MAGA republicans are populist extremists. Comparable to Viktor Orban in Hungary.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-retweet-cowboys/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265855459719892993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1265855459719892993%7Ctwgr%5Efea2656c17d3ed64d3006ca4e73da224b12090a0%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Ffact-check%2Ftrump-retweet-cowboys%2F (account now suspended)
Should Trump have been arrested for retweeting a video saying “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”?
You posted an article saying he said that. Knowing how dishonest the far left it it’s probably a lie.
And I’m not a “bloodthirsty fascist” at all, that’s all you and your cult. I’m just trying to bring the son of a bitch to justice for his crimes.
>You posted an article saying he said that. Knowing how dishonest the far left it it’s probably a lie.
I also literally gave you the Twitter link to it. There are dozens of articles at the time showing Trump retweeting that.
>And I’m not a “bloodthirsty fascist” at all, that’s all you and your cult. I’m just trying to bring the son of a bitch to justice for his crimes.
No, you are a fascist who wants a one-party state.
I saw no evidence of him saying it, just the DemoKKKrats saying he said it.
Not at all, I just want our corrupt fascist leaders held accountable. You literally want them to get away with treason and murder, you are no better than they are.
>I saw no evidence of him saying it, just the DemoKKKrats saying he said it.
It wasn't something Trump said - he retweeted another account saying it. Should Trump have been arrested for retweeting a video saying “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”?
>Not at all, I just want our corrupt fascist leaders held accountable. You literally want them to get away with treason and murder, you are no better than they are.
They have done no treason, nor murder. Your accusations don't make them so. Taking your logic to its extreme, you would destroy freedom of expression in the USA too. You are a fascist.
Did Trump say that? If not then no. If he did retweet it I would like to do some more digging so I know the full context.
They have committed treason and murder. Diaper Joe has quite the high carnage count, he is responsible directly for the Summer 2020 BLM insurrections, the death of Cayler Ellingson and the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh. I am on the side of freedom and democracy, you are on the side of radical socialism and fascism. History will not be kind to you and your death cult.
>Did Trump say that? If not then no. If he did retweet it I would like to do some more digging so I know the full context.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-retweet-cowboys/
>They have committed treason and murder. Diaper Joe has quite the high carnage count, he is responsible directly for the Summer 2020 BLM insurrections, the death of Cayler Ellingson and the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh. I am on the side of freedom and democracy, you are on the side of radical socialism and fascism. History will not be kind to you and your death cult.
No he hasn't, fascist. What you insist without evidence I can dismiss without evidence.
LOL, “fact checking” literally means twist the facts to fit the liberal agenda.
I gave you evidence that Diaper Joe directly incited the murder of Cayler Ellingson along with over 20 people in the BLM insurrections.
>LOL, “fact checking” literally means twist the facts to fit the liberal agenda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/28/trump-retweets-video-saying-only-good-democrat-is-dead-democrat/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-trump-shares-video-of-supporter-saying-the-only-good-democrat-is-a-dead-democrat/
https://theweek.com/speedreads/916844/trump-retweets-video-declaring-only-good-democrat-dead-democrat
https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/local/2020/05/29/couy-griffin-cowboys-for-trump-tweet-dead-democrat-video/5280516002/
https://eu.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2020/05/28/couy-griffin-cowboys-for-trump-tweet-dead-democrat-video/5279278002/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-twitter-today-cowboy-democrat-dead-couy-griffin-tweets-a9537016.html
>I gave you evidence that Diaper Joe directly incited the murder of Cayler Ellingson along with over 20 people in the BLM insurrections.
No, you gave me videos where you completely misrepresented Joe Biden. He said none of the things you claimed, fascist.
He very much did say those things and he knows how radical and crazy his death cult is. He shouted bomb on airplane and he should be impeached and prosecuted for murder.
shareNo, he did not fascist. You can keep insisting and I'll keep rejecting. I don't know why you expect a different outcome from me.
shareHow the hell am I a fascist? All I want is for the motherfucker to be held accountable for the people he murdered.
shareI've told you repeatedly how, because you invent fake reasons based on malicious misreadings of speeches and words said to have major political leaders of a political party you don't like as an excuse to show trial your political opponents and have them executed.
This is fascism 101. I will never not consider you a fascist.
I don’t invent fake reasons, I draw logical conclusions based on the facts, I’m sorry you don’t like the facts but that’s your own damn problem.
I’m guessing you are going to fight against what the left is trying to do with President Trump and defend him with the same passion that you are defending your cult leaders? I’m guessing the answer is no however.
>I don’t invent fake reasons, I draw logical conclusions based on the facts, I’m sorry you don’t like the facts but that’s your own damn problem.
Yes you do. They are excuses. Your logical excuses would lead to anyone who ever said "revolution" or "you have to eradicate transgenderism" on criminal charges. You are a fascist.
>I’m guessing you are going to fight against what the left is trying to do with President Trump and defend him with the same passion that you are defending your cult leaders? I’m guessing the answer is no however.
Trump isn't on trial for his life. Trump is also not on trial for anything he's specifically said. Trump is also not in office. Trump is also not being specifically targeted by the Democratic party.
HAHAHAHA, what? The DemoKKKrat party was out to get Trump from the very beginning, they wanted to impeach him before he even took office and then they spent 4 years inventing lies and conspiracy theories about him. And you people literally impeached him for something he said ("March peacefully and patriotically to the capitol and make your voices heard").
I get it now, it's OK to use the justice system to target a political figure as long as they are a Republican.
>HAHAHAHA, what? The DemoKKKrat party was out to get Trump from the very beginning, they wanted to impeach him before he even took office and then they spent 4 years inventing lies and conspiracy theories about him. And you people literally impeached him for something he said ("March peacefully and patriotically to the capitol and make your voices heard").
And yet this case has nothing to do with any of that.
>I get it now, it's OK to use the justice system to target a political figure as long as they are a Republican.
I said no such thing, and I have made no comment about whether or not these charges will stick or not.
It does, you said (falsely) that the DemoKKKrat party was not out to get Trump (lie) and you made the excuse that I am trying to impeach Diaper Joe for something he said (yet your cult did exactly that to Trump)
Your position confirms that you are fine with using the justice system to target political figures as long as they are Republicans, that is literally what they do in Banana Republics. You can redeem yourself by admitting that your cult abused their power to hurt President Trump.
>It does, you said (falsely) that the DemoKKKrat party was not out to get Trump (lie) and you made the excuse that I am trying to impeach Diaper Joe for something he said (yet your cult did exactly that to Trump)
Sure, they attempted to impeach him. This has nothing to do with that.
>Your position confirms that you are fine with using the justice system to target political figures as long as they are Republicans, that is literally what they do in Banana Republics. You can redeem yourself by admitting that your cult abused their power to hurt President Trump.
I said no such thing. Trump historically has been embroiled in tons of court cases for fraud and missed payments.
This does not change just because he was the president. And you can go fuck yourself, since I don't answer to you.
They did impeach him and it was over something he said, I thought you weren't supposed to do that according to you in relation to Diaper Joe?
The justice system is clearly out to get Trump, they are ignoring the fact that Diaper Joe is literally guilty of everything they are accusing Trump of, hell the FBI even told facebook to censor the Laptop story because it would make Diaper Joe look bad. Not only is that election interference it's also unconstitutional but your cult is fine with it. The system is rigged against Conservatives and it is systematically set up to favor your cult.
>They did impeach him and it was over something he said, I thought you weren't supposed to do that according to you in relation to Diaper Joe?
Impeach =/= Trial for treason
Republicans are welcome to give it a go.
>The justice system is clearly out to get Trump, they are ignoring the fact that Diaper Joe is literally guilty of everything they are accusing Trump of, hell the FBI even told facebook to censor the Laptop story because it would make Diaper Joe look bad. Not only is that election interference it's also unconstitutional but your cult is fine with it. The system is rigged against Conservatives and it is systematically set up to favor your cult.
No reason to believe any of this drivel.
And no, the Twitter Files shit is largely fake news:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
But you said that a president shouldn’t be prosecuted for things he said, so are you admitting your cult abused their power?
And when an article “fact checks” something that pretty much means it’s true. And who is “fact checking” the fact checkers? Why should I believe the fact checkers? You can call yourself a “fact checker” all you want but that doesn’t mean what you say is true by default. Plenty of “fact checkers” “fact checked” conservative assertions about Covid and those assertions ended up being true. Your cult is lying to you
>But you said that a president shouldn’t be prosecuted for things he said, so are you admitting your cult abused their power?
Impeachment is different altogether. Republicans are quite free to try and impeach Biden.
>And when an article “fact checks” something that pretty much means it’s true.
No, it does not. Do you think false claims do not exist or something?
>And who is “fact checking” the fact checkers?
Good fact-checkers cite their sources. You are quite welcome to check them.
>You can call yourself a “fact checker” all you want but that doesn’t mean what you say is true by default.
I did not say it did. But techdirt, which is a technology-based website, does go into significant detail and provides citations.
>Plenty of “fact checkers” “fact checked” conservative assertions about Covid and those assertions ended up being true. Your cult is lying to you
Examples please.
Yet when I brought up impeachment earlier you took offense to it, so which is it?
Sure false claims exist but “fact checking” doesn’t determine whether something is a false claim or not, someone has to “fact check” the “fact checkers” and if no one is then the “fact checkers” can just say whatever they want.
“Fact checkers” said that the virus did not escape from the Wu-Han lab and that Fauci didn’t fund it with our tax dollars, both turned out to be false, the “fact checkers” were wrong
>Yet when I brought up impeachment earlier you took offense to it, so which is it?
No I didn't. I took offence at the idea of trials for treason and execution.
>Sure false claims exist but “fact checking” doesn’t determine whether something is a false claim or not, someone has to “fact check” the “fact checkers” and if no one is then the “fact checkers” can just say whatever they want.
Again, read them and check their sourcing and their reasoning.
>“Fact checkers” said that the virus did not escape from the Wu-Han lab and that Fauci didn’t fund it with our tax dollars, both turned out to be false, the “fact checkers” were wrong
Fauci funded the escape of the virus from a lab? What? Evidence please.
In addition, the claim that it is from a lab is still highly speculative.
You sure were fine putting Trump on trial. You are beyond hypocritical
And who checks the “fact checkers” “sourcing and reasoning”
I didn’t say that, you just lied about what I said. I never said Fauci caused the virus to be released. I said he funded the lab that created the virus and allowed it to leak. You are a liar.
>You sure were fine putting Trump on trial. You are beyond hypocritical
He's not on trial for anything he's said currently.
>And who checks the “fact checkers” “sourcing and reasoning”
Anyone? You can be the fact-checker yourself if you want. Again, read their sources, read their reasonings. Who "fact-checks" Fox News? Who "facts-checks" The Daily Wire? Do you wonder this when you read their content?
>I didn’t say that, you just lied about what I said. I never said Fauci caused the virus to be released. I said he funded the lab that created the virus and allowed it to leak. You are a liar.
I didn't say that you did say that. I asked for clarification, wondering you meant he helped fund its release from this lab. Now you just say he funded this lab generally.
Provide evidence of this please.
But he was and you were OK with it. You are only against prosecuting Diaper Joe because he’s a DemoKKKrat.
You didn’t answer the question, how do we know we can believe the “fact checkers”?
First admit that you lied.
>But he was and you were OK with it. You are only against prosecuting Diaper Joe because he’s a DemoKKKrat.
Impeachment is not being charged for treason.
>You didn’t answer the question, how do we know we can believe the “fact checkers”?
You read what they say and you check their sourcing. If it is convincing, then it is convincing. That is an answer. Are you implying you need to be told what to think by some inherently 'superior' source?
>First admit that you lied.
Fuck off. I did no such thing.
Yet you’re against Diaper Joe being impeached.
You only say “it’s convincing” because it’s backing up the conclusion you decided on a long time ago. Funny how you don’t give the same grace to the original source.
You absolutely did lie, shithead.
>Yet you’re against Diaper Joe being impeached.
I've said no such thing. It's not my decision - it's a matter for the House and Senate.
>You only say “it’s convincing” because it’s backing up the conclusion you decided on a long time ago. Funny how you don’t give the same grace to the original source.
What "original source" exactly? The fact-checkers analyse the original sources, and when necessary, provide their own sources.
>You absolutely did lie, shithead.
No I did not. Your lack of reading comprehension does not mean I lied, and I won't be told to do anything.
Going to provide evidence for Fauci funding the lab that COVID obviously leaked from?
And it’s a matter of the criminal Justice system to bring Diaper Joe to justice for treason and murder.
So why should I believe the “fact checkers” source
You absolutely did lie and I am not entertaining your bullshit until you come clean about it.
>And it’s a matter of the criminal Justice system to bring Diaper Joe to justice for treason and murder.
Which has never happened before. I'm asking you if there is any historical precedent whatsoever of someone being tried for murder purely for the words they've said in the USA.
Certainly not based on your deliberately partisan misreading.
>So why should I believe the “fact checkers” source
Check their sources and arguments and decide for yourself. I didn't post it to just instantly make you believe anything. I posted it to show you that there do exist counter-claims against your claims, and those claims are backed up by sources. Read it if you want.
>You absolutely did lie and I am not entertaining your bullshit until you come clean about it.
Then you can fuck off
The reason for that is that the DemoKKKrats and Diaper Joe’s behavior are unprecedented. We have never had a President order his mob to go kill his political opponents.
Yet you cited a fact checker as if that proved that by calling itself a “fact checker” that meant it was objectively true.
Naw I don’t think I’m going to.
A while back, he tried using a "fact checker" about Trump where everything on the first page was falsified and then he tried to confirm one of them and failed because he made an erroneous assumption about it.
He will only cite fake news and false sources. I didn’t even bother looking at any of the following pages after that.
I know this guy is full of shit, putting libtard snowflakes in their places however is a personal hobby of mine.
shareYou never answered most of my questions. I don't think "putting people in their place" involves directly ignoring their questions repeatedly.
shareI answered all of your questions, you refuse to acknowledge how evil and corrupt your cult is.
shareNo, you actively refused to answer my questions.
I continue to await direct evidence of the virus lab leak, and of Fauci's historical involvement with said lab.
I did answer your question.
And in case you are still unclear over what is painfully obvious here you go: https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/HHRG-117-GO24-20211201-SD004.pdf
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-hold-china-fauci-accountable
The real answer is that agencies are divided on this question:
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-still-no-determination-on-covid-19-origin/
>https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/covid-leaked-wuhan-lab-hold-china-fauci-accountable
It's amusing how you regard Fox News as an authoritative source. I'm sure if in counter I referred you to an MSNBC or CNN source you'd tell me to fuck off? Or ask why you can trust them?
There you go again with your “fact checking” and you are still too gullible to understand that “fact checkers” “fact check” sources because the source contradicts their narrative and they want to discredit it.
FOX News at least presents both sides, there are plenty of libtards on FOX News (Geraldo Rivera, Jessica Tarlov, Chris Wallace, Richard Goldstein, Richard Fowler etc.). MSDNC and Fake News CNN are propaganda machines for the far left.
>There you go again with your “fact checking” and you are still too gullible to understand that “fact checkers” “fact check” sources because the source contradicts their narrative and they want to discredit it.
Have you ever considered actually reading any of these sources? Why is your Fox News source somehow inherently more reliable than a fact-check source?
>FOX News at least presents both sides, there are plenty of libtards on FOX News (Geraldo Rivera, Jessica Tarlov, Chris Wallace, Richard Goldstein, Richard Fowler etc.). MSDNC and Fake News CNN are propaganda machines for the far left.
I'm an atheist. Fox News spent much of its history openly insulting atheists as demonic and evil.
Fox News 100% leans right, and pro-Republican.
https://ground.news/interest/fox-news_a44aba
I read lots of news sources, I even watch the fake news at CNN and MSDNC, both of them lie much much much further to the left than Fox lies to the right. You need to get over it, you are only against Fox because it doesn’t give you the message you want to hear.
I have not heard one FOX News host say atheists are “demonic and evil”. 100% leans right? So Geraldo Rivera is a conservative? Chris Wallace is a conservative? More lies from you and your death cult. Try watching it for once, there are plenty of libtards on Fox, hell just watch one episode of the five there is always at least one libtard on the panel.
EDIT: BTW before you say it, I’m atheist also. I have only seen one segment where a host even said anything negative against atheists.
>I read lots of news sources, I even watch the fake news at CNN and MSDNC, both of them lie much much much further to the left than Fox lies to the right. You need to get over it, you are only against Fox because it doesn’t give you the message you want to hear.
This is just more "just trust me bro". You're obviously not going to say otherwise.
>EDIT: BTW before you say it, I’m atheist also. I have only seen one segment where a host even said anything negative against atheists.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/atheism-enemy-freedom-religious-liberty-eric-metaxas
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/skip-it-hey-american-atheists-here-are-five-reasons-to-come-to-church-this-christmas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3GRf9vk6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlhSyB7ouJ8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf807TKOL80
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/bestoftv/2013/09/09/exp-fox-atheist.foxnews
I at least am willing to listen to the other side unlike your death cult.
LOL 5 instances? You said “most of their history”, 5 instances isn’t even close, numb nuts. And I skimmed through a couple of them and they did not say that atheists were “demonic”. Get out of your cult you loser.
>I at least am willing to listen to the other side unlike your death cult.
I am British, I don't regularly watch anyone of them.
>LOL 5 instances? You said “most of their history”, 5 instances isn’t even close, numb nuts. And I skimmed through a couple of them and they did not say that atheists were “demonic”. Get out of your cult you loser.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/a-christmas-gift-for-atheists-five-reasons-why-god-exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8YaYs0WDM
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/28/fox-news-bill-oreilly-wdbj-shooting-atheism_n_8054632.html
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/todays-atheists-are-bullies-and-they-are-doing-their-best-to-intimidate-the-rest-of-us-into-silence
https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-my-tolerance-atheism-has-really-dwindled-nothing-point
Not "satanic", but it's clear that Fox News promotes an antipathic narrative towards athiests.
Well then maybe you shouldn’t make ignorant assumptions then.
And your sources were promoting Christianity, not demonizing atheism. And yes there are some atheists out there who I don’t condone who are harassing Christian’s. Sure I don’t agree with Christianity but we have a little thing called freedom of religion in this country and I don’t like it when Christians tell atheists they are going to hell so therefore we shouldn’t be harassing them and trying to ruin their holidays. Respect goes both ways, kiddo.
Did you even click any of the links I put? They are not just defending Christianity, they're insulting atheists.
shareI didn’t see anything directly insulting atheists, maybe you would be good enough to point out the exact quotes and make it easy for me?
And don’t pull the “you don’t know what it’s like to be atheist” card because I do. My parents told me if I was going to be atheist I might as well be dead.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/28/fox-news-bill-oreilly-wdbj-shooting-atheism_n_8054632.html
What is Bill O'Reilly suggesting here, exactly?
Maybe if you will take a stand against the far left tying J6 to Donald Trump I might take you seriously. Or the way they blamed the shooting of Gabby Gifford on Sarah Palin. The Huffington Post is a far left fake news source so they are probably lying anyways.
share>A while back, he tried using a "fact checker" about Trump where everything on the first page was falsified and then he tried to confirm one of them and failed because he made an erroneous assumption about it.
Would this be Trumps flu death claims that you misrepresented?
>He will only cite fake news and false sources. I didn’t even bother looking at any of the following pages after that.
What are sources you do not consider "fake news", exactly?
You mean the one that you misinterpreted based on your dumbass assumption since you were the liar that pointed it out…........nice try.
shareNo, you made a charitable observation that Trump meant globally, not nationally if I recall.
You'll forgive me if I think a man who thinks Finnish people "rake" the forests to prevent forest fires probably meant the latter.
The fact-checker lied and you made the erroneous assumption based on that lie since that was their intended purpose.
sharehttps://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article246254140.html
Some specific context.
Trump claims 100k die some years.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the flu, also known as influenza, has resulted in between 12,000 and 61,000 deaths in the U.S. each year since 2010."
Are you going to continue lying?
shareAbout what? Did Trump not make that tweet? Is the CDC wrong?
shareNow you are redirecting from the specific false fact-checker that you pointed out as trying to confirm that Trump was lying which was an erroneous assumption that you made and then I provided the quote from the actual information that proved Trump was actually correct. You were able to verify it and now you are redirecting it elsewhere.
Once again, are you going to continue lying?
>Now you are redirecting from the specific false fact-checker that you pointed out as trying to confirm that Trump was lying which was an erroneous assumption that you made and then I provided the quote from the actual information that proved Trump was actually correct. You were able to verify it and now you are redirecting it elsewhere.
No, you made a charitable observation that Trump (in that instance) meant globally, not nationally if I recall. Notably 1 and a half million died in the first year of COVID (globally).
>Once again, are you going to continue lying?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
>The reason for that is that the DemoKKKrats and Diaper Joe’s behavior are unprecedented. We have never had a President order his mob to go kill his political opponents.
And we still haven't. You outright lie about his statements. And I didn't just ask you for a presidential example - any citizen. Has a citizen ever been arrested and charged for saying something like Joe Biden?
>Yet you cited a fact checker as if that proved that by calling itself a “fact checker” that meant it was objectively true.
I did. Did you click the link? Did you check its arguments and reasoning?
>Naw I don’t think I’m going to.
Right. And I'm not going to apologise for something I didn't do.
I did not lie about his statements at all, I even posted the entire quote in the full context and he incited violence against his political opponents. No president has ever ordered his mob to kill his political opponents, that’s unprecedented so therefore our response should be unprecedented.
You lied about what I said, you need to own up to it. You said that I said that Fauci ordered the virus to be released from Wu Han, I never said that you liar.
>I did not lie about his statements at all, I even posted the entire quote in the full context and he incited violence against his political opponents. No president has ever ordered his mob to kill his political opponents, that’s unprecedented so therefore our response should be unprecedented.
No, he did not. Your reading comprehension is shit, or you're being deliberately deceptive as an excuse to execute your political opponents because as I always maintain, you are a fascist.
>You lied about what I said, you need to own up to it. You said that I said that Fauci ordered the virus to be released from Wu Han, I never said that you liar.
No, I *asked you* if that's what you meant. It was a partial question. And I never said "ordered" at all. It looked like you were suggesting he funded its release, not that he specifically ordered it.
No the problem is you just want to twist the facts in the direction of your false narrative, you are a very dishonest poster.
Yes you did, you said that I said that Fauci was responsible for the virus leaking from the Wu-Han lab, I never said that. You lied.
>No the problem is you just want to twist the facts in the direction of your false narrative, you are a very dishonest poster.
"No u"
It's as simple as that.
>Yes you did, you said that I said that Fauci was responsible for the virus leaking from the Wu-Han lab, I never said that. You lied.
I framed it as query, and I certainly did not suggest you suggested he "ordered" its release. You can go eat glass if you expect any other response to this.
LOL, running low on retorts now are you?
Admit you lied, son. I didn’t say Fauci had anything to do with the release of covid.
>LOL, running low on retorts now are you?
You're just reiterating claims you made prior about your interpretations of Biden/Kamalas comments. What else is there to say?
>Admit you lied, son. I didn’t say Fauci had anything to do with the release of covid.
And neither did I directly say you did. You can fuck off.
I’m hoping if I keep beating you over the head (figuratively) with facts and logic that maybe something will eventually stick.
You sure did, numb nuts. Admit you are a liar.
>I’m hoping if I keep beating you over the head (figuratively) with facts and logic that maybe something will eventually stick.
Just repeating your arguments doesn't make them more believable. Biden did not mean what you claimed. Nor did Kamala. Repeating it won't change my position, fascist.
>You sure did, numb nuts. Admit you are a liar.
False premise. Not doing anything at your command. You can continue to fuck off.
Just hoping you’ll wise up one day, when someone is giving you good advice like I am the courteous thing to do is to thank you.
Not a false premise at all, you are a liar and I now have 2 examples of you lying.
I don't take advice from fascists. You just repeating your original claims when I've seen the wider context of what Biden, Kamala and others said in full doesn't make for an effective argument.
>Not a false premise at all, you are a liar and I now have 2 examples of you lying.
I'm not bound by your shit reading comprehension.
Again just hoping that one day you will see reason.
You are a liar and you’ve been called out on it twice you moron.
Also, if you're an atheist... what do you think of the theofascists in the Republican party?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3540071-boebert-says-she-is-tired-of-separation-between-church-and-state-the-church-is-supposed-to-direct-the-government/
I agree with separation of church and state but in all honesty it’s not a constitutional right and there are bigger issues at hand. Right now the DemoKKKrats are burning the country down, I will deal with Lauren Boebert’s uncharged cell phone after we put the fire out.
shareIt's literally in the constitution.
A large amount of elected Republican representatives are borderline Christofascists who want to model the US after a kind of Christian Iran.
It literally isn’t, what amendment is it in? It’s sure not the first one. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that, much like nowhere in the constitution does it say that women have a right to an abortion. The SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution says that there is separation of church and state.
There is literally no one trying to force Christianity on anyone. I’ve lived in the South my entire life and that literally doesn’t happen here. You are just listening to the far left fake news and their lies.
>It literally isn’t, what amendment is it in? It’s sure not the first one. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that, much like nowhere in the constitution does it say that women have a right to an abortion. The SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution says that there is separation of church and state.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state#:~:text=The%20first%20clause%20in%20the,respecting%20an%20establishment%20of%20religion.%E2%80%9D
>There is literally no one trying to force Christianity on anyone. I’ve lived in the South my entire life and that literally doesn’t happen here. You are just listening to the far left fake news and their lies.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/how-republicans-recast-christian-indoctrination-as-religious-freedom.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/26/school-prayer-kennedy-church-state/
And of course, the anti-abortion argument in the US is 100% religiously charged.
It says there will be no established church, that means the government doesn’t fund churches. That doesn’t mean separation of church and state. The interpretation was if the government funds anything religious then that would constitute the government funding a church. The words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the US constitution. Educate yourself.
EDIT: Even your own article says that separation of church and state was “interpreted”. The SCOTUS in the future could interpret it differently.
No the anti-abortion argument is morally charged. Killing babies is evil.
https://www.au.org/separation-of-church-and-state-constitution/#
>No the anti-abortion argument is morally charged. Killing babies is evil.
And it's a religious interpretation that leads people to think an unborn child is a baby. Almost every single secular country has no problem with abortion, yet almost every other religious country does. Objection to it is thoroughly religious, and rooted in religious presuppositions.
Abortion support tracks 80%+ in my country
How is it a religious interpretation? Please explain how you need religion to arrive at that conclusion when all you really need is biology, the baby has two sets of chromosomes , it’s a life you evil scumbag.
Your article clearly said that SOCAS was “interpreted” that’s the job of the SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution, I agree with the interpretation but SOCAS is nowhere to be found in the constitution, again educate yourself.
>So you’re unwilling to read the evidence you asked for?
You are unwilling to show it again. I'm not jumping through multiple hoops. This is a huge thread. If you did post it, it's possible I missed it.
>I already posted evidence.
No you didn't. I want data that most democrats support no restrictions on abortions.
>You gave me two or three possibly nutty Republicans and judging by your far left sources I have every reason to doubt them. I literally posted stuff that the DemoKKKrat cult is largely behind, again False Equivalence on your part.
No, you posted 1 Democrat representative calling for no restrictions on abortion. I gave you multiple republicans expressing far-right positions.
If you're just going to assume every source I post to you is a lie, and everything I say to you is a lie, then we may as well end this and you never talk to me again.
I already showed you, the fact that you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.
I posted evidence that the vast majority of DemoKKKrats don’t want any restrictions on abortions. The shit you’ve deflected to is only supported by a few fringe Republicans that do not in any way represent what the party stands for.
Do what you will.
>I already showed you, the fact that you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.
I don't even recall a link.
>I posted evidence that the vast majority of DemoKKKrats don’t want any restrictions on abortions. The shit you’ve deflected to is only supported by a few fringe Republicans that do not in any way represent what the party stands for.
No you didn't. You are outright lying.
Go back and read.
Yes I did, and I have caught you lying on multiple occasions so you might not want to throw that word around.
Also on an unrelated note, what is up with you? Sometimes it takes me 8 hours to respond to you but no matter what time of day I post you immediately reply with your cults talking points within seconds. You seriously must just hit refresh all day. I’m not saying this has anything to do with this discussion but it’s something I’ve noticed.
>Go back and read.
Again, too many posts. When you could just easily repost it. That you can't be bothered suggests to me that you're lying.
You have done no such thing about me supposedly lying. You lie and misrepresent what people say constantly.
>Also on an unrelated note, what is up with you? Sometimes it takes me 8 hours to respond to you but no matter what time of day I post you immediately reply with your cults talking points within seconds. You seriously must just hit refresh all day. I’m not saying this has anything to do with this discussion but it’s something I’ve noticed.
I jump back onto the site throughout parts of the day. It's flat out untrue that I always quickly respond (although you're most active evening time my time when I am more likely to check it). These aren't exactly long responses to make.
I’m not going to bend over backwards for someone who refuses to read. I have not once lied, I have however caught you lying multiple times.
You do quickly respond, like it’s within a matter of minutes after it took me half a day to respond. I was out of town the other weekend so it literally took me 48 hours to respond but just like clockwork you were there within a matter of no time.
>I’m not going to bend over backwards for someone who refuses to read. I have not once lied, I have however caught you lying multiple times.
Again, you do realise how large this thread is? If you have a source that you've supposedly posted, you can easily repost it.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done and as I regard you as a fascist I'd rather you not talk to me again. I suspect you likely won't honour this.
I shouldn't have to spoon feed this to you and post sources multiple times. I expect you to read the stuff I assign to you.
You can regard me as a fascist all you want but that doesn't make it true. The truth is you are actively supporting racists, Marxists, insurrectionists and domestic terrorists, along with a far left death cult. If you are looking for a fascist just take a good hard look in the mirror, kid.
>I shouldn't have to spoon feed this to you and post sources multiple times. I expect you to read the stuff I assign to you.
You didn't post it once. I've used term searches to check it. And you are raging hypocrite who blatantly never clicks any links I give based on your blatant misunderstanding of many of those links (especially the techdirt elon musk twitter files one) which you never addressed.
>You can regard me as a fascist all you want but that doesn't make it true. The truth is you are actively supporting racists, Marxists, insurrectionists and domestic terrorists, along with a far left death cult. If you are looking for a fascist just take a good hard look in the mirror, kid.
I don't "actively support" anyone, fascist. You are a fascist because you wish to use the state to destroy a political party and effectively convert the US into a one-party state.
I have clicked your far left fake news sources and you have not come even close to proving your false narratives.
You are a liar, I never wanted to destroy a political party, I just want the justice system to be fair and hold your cult accountable for treason and inciting insurrections you dishonest fuck.
>I have clicked your far left fake news sources and you have not come even close to proving your false narratives.
Clearly not, since you didn't seem to know what my "far-left link" was about. How is Techdirt a "far-left" website?
>You are a liar, I never wanted to destroy a political party, I just want the justice system to be fair and hold your cult accountable for treason and inciting insurrections you dishonest fuck.
No, you are a fascist who wants to abuse the American legal system to persecute and effectively murder the leaders of the Democrats on false trumped up Russia-tier charges in an attempt to destroy their party and usher in a single-party state.
You won’t admit it, but Biden’s speech was just as inciteful as you say Trump’s was. You can’t say Trump was guilty of causing an insurection and not use the same rhetoric against Biden.
BTW, punishment is different for Democrats than for Republicans. Courts are very lenient when a Democrat is charged with a crime. See the following:
“Driver in deadly car attack at Charlottesville rally sentenced to life in prison.” Before that he was denied bail.
Not so with Biden’s lemming who ran over and murdered 18 year old Cayler Ellingson. The Biden lemming was granted bail.
Before Harris became Vice President she set up a fund to bail out the thugs who were burning our cities.
>You won’t admit it, but Biden’s speech was just as inciteful as you say Trump’s was. You can’t say Trump was guilty of causing an insurection and not use the same rhetoric against Biden.
I mean the difference here is that thousands of Democrats didn't storm the capitol building after several public statements by Biden.
Biden was simply noting the extremism of the 'MAGA Republican' movement. He did not call for any violence, nor suggest any kind of coup.
>Not so with Biden’s lemming who ran over and murdered 18 year old Cayler Ellingson. The Biden lemming was granted bail.
And what will his ultimate punishment be? Seems he's charged for murder. You're quibbling here. These are also in different states.
>Before Harris became Vice President she set up a fund to bail out the thugs who were burning our cities.
Source?
I erred when I wrote she was responsible for starting the fund. She supported it and encouraged others to donate in order to bail out protestors.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bail-fund-backed-by-kamala-harris-freed-man-charged-with-murder/
”Although the fund has been operating for six years, it gained wider recognition in 2020 when it was used in the wake of George Floyd's death.
It was used to help bail out protestors in Minneapolis, where George Floyd was murdered, and received millions of dollars in donations helped by appeals from numerous celebrities.”
”Among those in support of the fund was Kamala Harris, who tweeted "If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-back-bail-fund-murderers-rapists-1754314
“Reminder: Kamala Harris Helped Bail Out Criminals Burning Down American Cities”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/08/31/reminder-kamala-harris-raised-money-to-bail-out-violent-protestors-n2575354
I think this is just general ignorance from her end.
"In 2020 Kamala Harris did encourage donations towards the Minnesota Freedom Fund via Twitter.
However, her message was connected to protestors arrested in Minnesota who had taken to the streets after the death of George Floyd, some of whom faced lengthy arraignments in jail with no money for bail.
It appears that Harris has not spoken about the fund since. Others, charged later with crimes unconnected to the protests, were not advocated for release by Harris, and also were not offered bail funds for charges on those crimes."
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-back-bail-fund-murderers-rapists-1754314
She's a crap politician
”Others, charged later with crimes unconnected to the protests, were not advocated for release by Harris, and also were not offered bail funds for charges on those crimes."
Surely, you jest. Others were charged? I only know of Jan. 6 protesters being charged. The rioters who burn our cities, assault citizens, murder people during these riots are never charged. During the Ferguson riots faces of the perpetrators were viewed. The stepfather standing on a car yelling “Let’s burn this city down!” I didn’t hear about arrests.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missouri-shooting/more-than-400-arrested-as-ferguson-protests-spread-to-other-u-s-cities-idUSKCN0J80PR20141126
Assuming that is what you're referring to
I’m sorry. I should have wrote CHARGED & JAILED out of 80 ARRESTED.
Posted on Nov 25, 2014 Updated on May 30, 2021, 3:28 am CDT
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ferguson-riots-tally/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/08/22/arrest.data.from.8-10.to.8-22.pdf
The charges were lowered from the true actions. How many received jail time?
“Ferguson has seen a spike in homicides — nearly 30 in the past five years in a town where killings were once uncommon. Knowles believes criminals have become more brazen knowing police are hesitant to make traffic stops — the so-called "Ferguson effect."
This data doesn't tell us what punishment people got. Just the charges.
shareFrom all the other incidents akin to this I have read they get no more than a slap on the wrist. You do realize not all are local. There are groups who travel the U.S. just to exacerbate the incidents. Those are the ones who wear balaclavas so they won’t be recognized. After the destruction they move on. If caught doing their wanton destruction they should be shot by the owners of the businesses!
shareWhere have you read this, exactly?
shareRead what, exactly?
shareThat no-one was charged.
shareRe:George Floyd
“Most charges against George Floyd protesters dropped, analysis shows”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
Portland drops charges for 90% arrested during recent riots
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/7/portland-drops-charges-for-90-arrested-during-rece/
Re:Michael Brown
Still looking. Out of text space. I’m down to 3 words per line.
I thought we were talking specifically about the 2014 riots in Ferguson.
What are the rate of dropped charges in the US capitol riots? Or things like the "Unite the Right" rally? You need to make comparisons with other riots here.
We were. Still looking. Re:1/6
445 sentenced
58% serving time. This is way more than all of the riots of 2020 put together. Doesn’t seem like equal justice. 1/6 protesters didn’t murder over 22 people. Didn’t set our cities on fire. Didn’t take 2x4’s & beat people. Didn’t pull people out of vehicles & use their head to kick like a football. Put innocents into comas. Didn’t throw dangerous projectiles at cops. Educate yourself to learn the truth. They didn’t dare charge & sentence Blacks. Too fearful of more riots.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/25/1165022885/1000-defendants-january-6-capitol-riot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932023_United_States_racial_unrest
According to this 19 people in total died in the 2020-23 unrests.
With 14,000 arrests by July 2020.
Did you not read my prior reply? Most charges against George Floyd protesters dropped, analysis shows
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/
And apparently 95% of those protesters were peaceful
DemoKKKrats have stormed the Oklahoma, Tennessee Capitols and they tried to storm the White House.
There is no “extreme MAGA Republicans” the extremism is all from his side.
The far left radical who murdered Cayler Ellingson was given bail, if he had been a conservative he wouldn’t have been.
Here you go: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minnesota-bail-fund-promoted-kamala-harris-freed-convict-now-charged-murder
>DemoKKKrats have stormed the Oklahoma, Tennessee Capitols and they tried to storm the White House.
When did they try to "storm the white house"?
And I don't really like those other events, but it wasn't done with the intent of possibly taking hostages and forcing an election outcome.
>There is no “extreme MAGA Republicans” the extremism is all from his side.
So what was January the 6th, exactly?
>The far left radical who murdered Cayler Ellingson was given bail, if he had been a conservative he wouldn’t have been.
Completely speculative. And he was charged anyway.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-than-60-secret-service-officers-injured-during-violent-george-floyd-protests-in-washington-d-c
Uhhhh BLM stormed the Oklahoma capitol with the intention of preventing lawmakers from voting on a bill, it was very much to destroy our democracy. BLM is everything the left claims the J6 protesters were only worse.
J6 was a slightly out of control but mostly peaceful protest that has been milked and lied about by the far left for over 2 years. J6 was a day at the beach compared to your typical BLM riot.
No speculation at all
>Uhhhh BLM stormed the Oklahoma capitol with the intention of preventing lawmakers from voting on a bill, it was very much to destroy our democracy. BLM is everything the left claims the J6 protesters were only worse.
>J6 was a slightly out of control but mostly peaceful protest that has been milked and lied about by the far left for over 2 years. J6 was a day at the beach compared to your typical BLM riot.
They were literally inside the offices of Nancy Pelosi, and were walking around with the pulpit.
>No speculation at all
Yes it is. What magic ball do you have that knows he was given bail purely because he's a Democrat? He was charged anyway.
HAHAHAHA so they walked into her office? Get over it, the Capitol Police probably let them in now that we have the footage that the far left hid from us for two years.
It’s beyond obvious, people who committed far lesser offenses who were Republican were not given bail. But in the end it wasn’t his fault, he was just a victim of Diaper Joe’s lies and calls for violence.
>HAHAHAHA so they walked into her office? Get over it, the Capitol Police probably let them in now that we have the footage that the far left hid from us for two years.
What does it matter if they were let in or not? Does the Capitol police not doing their job here make it better?
Are people under normal circumstances allowed to barge into members of congress offices? Why did they flee? Why did Pence flee?
>It’s beyond obvious, people who committed far lesser offenses who were Republican were not given bail. But in the end it wasn’t his fault, he was just a victim of Diaper Joe’s lies and calls for violence.
No, it's not "beyond obvious". You have one single example.
If they were let in then they didn’t do anything wrong. It was the Capitol Police’s job to stop them and they didn’t. If they were given access then they probably thought it was OK.
Don’t know why Pence fled and I don’t care about your speculation.
All the J6 protestors did was walk into a building to protest what we now know was a fraudulent election.
BLM and Antifa would have burned the Capitol to the ground and would have killed the police.
>If they were let in then they didn’t do anything wrong. It was the Capitol Police’s job to stop them and they didn’t. If they were given access then they probably thought it was OK.
Again, I'm sure you'll find the evidence that says they were all let in.
>Don’t know why Pence fled and I don’t care about your speculation.
So you're allowed to speculate, and I'm not? Literally the entire chamber fled. Why is this?
>All the J6 protestors did was walk into a building to protest what we now know was a fraudulent election.
No evidence for this.
There’s literally plenty of evidence.
I never speculated, that’s all you, kiddo.
Plenty of evidence, kiddo
I've seen all the claims about electoral fraud, and for each claim there's detailed expansive rebuttal with sourcing.
But, pray tell, why aren't you in open rebellion? Why aren't all of you in literal open rebellion? If you truly believe that the election was fraudulent, why aren't you all trying to forcefully remove the government?
The FBI censored the Hunter Biden laptop story which is illegal and we now know 1 out of every 6 Dipaer Joe voters wouldn’t have voted for the son of a bitch had they known, there you go Trump wins, stolen election.
Because I don’t condone political violence like your cult does.
>The FBI censored the Hunter Biden laptop story which is illegal and we now know 1 out of every 6 Dipaer Joe voters wouldn’t have voted for the son of a bitch had they known, there you go Trump wins, stolen election.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
>1 out of every 6 Dipaer Joe voters wouldn’t have voted for the son of a bitch had they known, there you go Trump wins, stolen election.
Also are you arguing that the information misleading the public about something means the election is stolen?
This means the UK Brexit referendum was fraudulent by your logic.
>Because I don’t condone political violence like your cult does.
You don't think it's reasonable to rise up to remove what you claim to know is a government purely elected by fraud? What makes you think it won't happen again, if it's happened once?
And I’m sure that source isn’t lying. These are the same people who perpetuated the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory for 4 straight years. Diaper Joe did use the FBI to censor the laptop story which is unconstitutional. The election was stolen, if the FBI hadn’t done something that was unconstitutional Trump would have won according to the polls.
I think it’s right to fix the system and weed out the swamp, you however want to kill your political opponents.
>And I’m sure that source isn’t lying. These are the same people who perpetuated the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory for 4 straight years. Diaper Joe did use the FBI to censor the laptop story which is unconstitutional. The election was stolen, if the FBI hadn’t done something that was unconstitutional Trump would have won according to the polls.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
Was the UK Referendum in 2016 fraudulent? The Brexit campaign told many mistruths.
>I think it’s right to fix the system and weed out the swamp, you however want to kill your political opponents.
Who is it I want to kill?
Yet I have posted evidence that the FBI did tell twitter and facebook to censor the story. It’s an objective fact that they did. The election was stolen.
If you support Diaper Joe then you were fine with him telling his mob to murder the SCOTUS
>Yet I have posted evidence that the FBI did tell twitter and facebook to censor the story. It’s an objective fact that they did. The election was stolen.
No you haven't.
Care to comment on any of the content in the Techdirt article?
>If you support Diaper Joe then you were fine with him telling his mob to murder the SCOTUS
I support someone like Joe Biden, to the extent that I do from abroad, by default. Because the Republicans are theofascists and I'd more or less support anyone who ran under the Democrats.
And he didn't do that. False premise. You already know I reject this premise, fascist.
I did post evidence and all your article said was “uh uh the election wasn’t stolen”, there’s nothing to respond to dingleberry.
You have that complete ass backwards, Republicans are literally for smaller government and personal freedom, the modern day DemoKKKrats are for bigger government and fascism. Educate yourself.
>No I said harrassment could be bigotry, I didn't say all bigotry was harassment, you lied again. Your definition of bigotry is just having a different opinion than yours.
No, that is not my definition of bigotry. I literally gave you the a definition of bigotry:
"obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
>I have given you non-negotiable evidence that he did. Diaper Joe is a murderer and a traitor and you are an accessory by supporting the son of a bitch.
No, you did not. I am not bound by your edicts or decisions. You don't get to dictate to me what it is I must think, fascist.
>And it's a moot point, religious people are more likely to be Republicans, Republicans believe in personal responsibility and not killing babies, there you go. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Yes, religious people are also more likely to be Republicans for a whole bunch of reasons too. There's a general correlation there too. Republicans tend to generally be socially reactionary, which religion untamed by secularism tends to be.
>I did post evidence and all your article said was “uh uh the election wasn’t stolen”, there’s nothing to respond to dingleberry.
My article, specifically, refers to the allegations of the FBI censoring Twitter. It makes no comment on the other claims about electoral fraud. And it says much more than just "nuh uh". You clearly did not read it.
>You have that complete ass backwards, Republicans are literally for smaller government and personal freedom, the modern day DemoKKKrats are for bigger government and fascism. Educate yourself.
Personal freedom like controlling women's bodies (in some cases potentially flirting with banning birth control), wanting to ban all drag culture (not just in schools), endorsing sodomy laws, wanting to ban pornography, forcing creationism into schools, objecting to voluntary euthanasia. Many different Republican representatives hold varying positions on all of these, but most of them bad. Small government, but small enough to fit into your bedroom.
What fascist laws do Democrats currently lobby for?
That is all it says, the article gave me nothing to respond to.
It’s not about controlling woman’s bodies, it’s about protecting babies. And the woman had the choice to do what she wanted with her body when she had sex. Unless she was raped then she is 50% responsible for the pregnancy. Killing a baby is just wrong.
“Ban all drag” - nope just in schools
“Endorsing sodomy laws” - nope, I never have
“Ban pornography” - nope never have
“Teach creationism in school” - I;m sure you can find some nutcase who wants to but the vast majority of Republicans don’t want to do that.
And get over the whole “keep the laws out of my bedroom or my body” that was not the DemoKKKrats stance when they were trying to force untested vaccines on everyone. You are such a joke as is your cult. Again it’s not about “controlling women’s bodies”, she made the choice when she chose to have sex, it’s about stopping infanticide.
>That is all it says, the article gave me nothing to respond to.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
No, it does not.
>It’s not about controlling woman’s bodies, it’s about protecting babies. And the woman had the choice to do what she wanted with her body when she had sex. Unless she was raped then she is 50% responsible for the pregnancy. Killing a baby is just wrong.
Your thoughts on birth control access?
>“Ban all drag” - nope just in schools
https://twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1620467163172868096?s=20&t=oQNIsVjpGU4oYkgPZ8ZTFw
https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1698/2023 (full legal context)
This would make gothic rock illegal.
>“Endorsing sodomy laws” - nope, I never have
Didn't say you did. However:
https://www.advocate.com/law/2022/6/30/texas-ag-ken-paxton-willing-and-able-defend-sodomy-law
>“Ban pornography” - nope never have
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senator-pushes-law-effectively-outlaw-online-porn-nationwide-1767819
>“Teach creationism in school” - I;m sure you can find some nutcase who wants to but the vast majority of Republicans don’t want to do that.
https://www.salon.com/2021/04/14/republicans-who-pushed-arkansas-anti-trans-ban-just-passed-a-bill-to-teach-creationism-in-schools/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/04/08/tennessee-republicans-inherit-the-wind-pass-creationism-bill/?sh=ad0c2b577156
>And get over the whole “keep the laws out of my bedroom or my body” that was not the DemoKKKrats stance when they were trying to force untested vaccines on everyone. You are such a joke as is your cult. Again it’s not about “controlling women’s bodies”, she made the choice when she chose to have sex, it’s about stopping infanticide.
Ultimately, people were not forced to get vaccinated. What fascist laws do Democrats currently lobby for?
Yes it does.
You posted quotes from like one person who is probably not taken seriously anyways. There is no movement in this country to do any of those things. You would think that FOX news by your logic would be the ones promoting that nonsense yet they aren’t and I watch it more than you do apparently.
The Diaper Joe administration shamed and did everything they could to force people to get vaccinated. “My body my choice” wasn’t a thing when it came to vaccinations. They even fired people who didn’t get vaccinated. The DemoKKKrats want to kill their opposition, they want no limits on abortion, they are against voter ID laws so illegal aliens can vote, they want to confiscate guns so that BLM can kill us. They are fascists. You have not named one fascist thing that mainstream Republicans are for.
>Yes it does.
Sorry, so are you alleging no other text exists on this page: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
That literally all it says is "no it doesn't"?
>You posted quotes from like one person who is probably not taken seriously anyways. There is no movement in this country to do any of those things. You would think that FOX news by your logic would be the ones promoting that nonsense yet they aren’t and I watch it more than you do apparently.
You mean elected representatives in state and federal government drawing up laws?
>The Diaper Joe administration shamed and did everything they could to force people to get vaccinated. “My body my choice” wasn’t a thing when it came to vaccinations. They even fired people who didn’t get vaccinated.
I don't think the firing even happened, perhaps in some public sector industries or healthcare for a brief time. But strongly urging is still not fascist.
>The DemoKKKrats want to kill their opposition,
Show me some bills proposing this.
>they want no limits on abortion
You think abortion access is fascist? Is the UK and Sweden fascist?
>, they are against voter ID laws so illegal aliens can vote,
You think expanding the voter franchise is fascist?
>they want to confiscate guns so that BLM can kill us.
UK has strict gun laws. Does that make us fascist?
>They are fascists. You have not named one fascist thing that mainstream Republicans are for.
I've named multiple bills in progress that show the authoritarian and theocratic lean of the Republican party currently. 'Fascist' is the wrong word. Dominionism is more accurate.
Your source didn’t give me anything to respond to. All it said was the election wasn’t stolen yet we now know it was.
You pointed to one person, the entire Republican Party isn’t behind those ideas you idiot unlike how the entire DemoKKKrat party is behind murdering MAGA republicans.
Firing did happen, people lost their jobs because they wouldn’t get the shot, educate yourself.
Just listen to Diaper Joe’s speech, he told his mob to kill MAGA Republicans.
Do you think no limits on abortion is wrong?
Expanding the voter franchise to people who shouldn’t vote absolutely is. Non citizens don’t have a right to vote in US elections, just like I can’t vote in a UK election.
Deflecting to UK is a non sequitur. UK also doesn’t have the far left domestic terrorist issues that we have.
You named things that literally one person is in favor of, hardly the big picture. Nice try, junior.
>Your source didn’t give me anything to respond to. All it said was the election wasn’t stolen yet we now know it was.
You clearly didn't click the link. The Techdirt link refers to the allegations of the FBI forcing Twitter to censor content. It mentions nothing specifically about allegations of electoral fraud. I'll post it again for context: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/
>You pointed to one person, the entire Republican Party isn’t behind those ideas you idiot unlike how the entire DemoKKKrat party is behind murdering MAGA republicans.
I pointed to multiple bills by multiple republicans, and also state republican parties passing policy.
>Firing did happen, people lost their jobs because they wouldn’t get the shot, educate yourself.
Examples?
>Just listen to Diaper Joe’s speech, he told his mob to kill MAGA Republicans.
No he didn't. This is your continued lie. I've read the context of speech. He said nothing of the sort.
>Do you think no limits on abortion is wrong?
I do not. But I support access to it. I don't have a specific preference as to the cut-off, but I'll defer to medical authorities.
>Expanding the voter franchise to people who shouldn’t vote absolutely is. Non citizens don’t have a right to vote in US elections, just like I can’t vote in a UK election.
How is that fascist? Explain how that works please.
>Deflecting to UK is a non sequitur. UK also doesn’t have the far left domestic terrorist issues that we have.
But you implied that gun control and abortion access is inherently fascist. If that's so, then does that not make the UK fascist?
>You named things that literally one person is in favor of, hardly the big picture. Nice try, junior.
I literally referred to 2 instances of state bills sponsored and passed by the state Republican party.
So, you think it was fair to grant bail to a leftist nut who ran down an 18 year old kid because he thought the kid was a conservative? Gotcha! But, on the other hand if the right wing guy who ran down a woman in Charlottesville was granted bail…you would be screaming a different damn tune! So, admit it!
BTW, breathing movements begin as early as week 10 of pregnancy, they start in earnest starting at about week 20. It’s not how we breathe air, but it’s called fetal breathing. Muscle contractions bring amniotic fluid in and out of the lungs. The heart starts beating at 4 weeks. It is not a thing…it is the beginning of a new human life. Someday, if left alone & not ripped to shreds, this new developing human being will be born. There are Dems in congress who believe abortion is OK up until birth. Their evil minds, maybe you think the same, believe it’s a thing to be done away with if at the last moment before birth a woman has a right to choose an abortion. She should go to prison along with the butcher. You may wish to view the following then tell us you don’t see a human being at 7 weeks!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-lQOooYAs8
>So, you think it was fair to grant bail to a leftist nut who ran down an 18 year old kid because he thought the kid was a conservative? Gotcha! But, on the other hand if the right wing guy who ran down a woman in Charlottesville was granted bail…you would be screaming a different damn tune! So, admit it!
When did I give an opinion on that, exactly? I don't think anyone accused of murder should be granted bail. I just noted that it doesn't really demonstrate anything without context of how bails work, how bails work across states etc.
>BTW, breathing movements begin as early as week 10 of pregnancy, they start in earnest starting at about week 20. It’s not how we breathe air, but it’s called fetal breathing. Muscle contractions bring amniotic fluid in and out of the lungs. The heart starts beating at 4 weeks. It is not a thing…it is the beginning of a new human life. Someday, if left alone & not ripped to shreds, this new developing human being will be born. There are Dems in congress who believe abortion is OK up until birth. Their evil minds, maybe you think the same, believe it’s a thing to be done away with if at the last moment before birth a woman has a right to choose an abortion. She should go to prison along with the butcher. You may wish to view the following then tell us you don’t see a human being at 7 weeks!
I never said I supported it up until birth.
I live in the UK. Abortion support tracks 87%. Are we all monsters?
”Are we all monsters?”
In a nutshell…yes…as I was once. I was in the past pro-choice. Actually that term is a misnomer. It’s truly pro-death of an innocent new life just beginning. I began to question my belief when I read an article about a young woman who at 4 months pregnant decided to obtain an abortion. At that time an abortion past 3 months was a different procedure. It was just as horrific as the way it’s done today.
The thing that has changed is the abortion butchers of today have slipped further into hell. Today they use their murdering instruments to rip apart a baby. Sort of a Hannibal Lecter type. Josef Rudolf Mengele would be so proud of today’s butchers.
Anyhow, the young woman decided to tell what occurred. The procedure was to administer saline into the womb. For 3 horrific days the baby thrashed about while it was being scalded to death. The woman also was in pain. God’s justice, but mercy prevailed. When she was informed about what her unborn baby went through, Hallelujah, she became a staunch pro-life advocate! I also began to rethink my beliefs especially when reading about the abortion butcher’s techniques. Advancements in scientific videos showing conception, viewing the different stages of what occurs during the 9 months sealed the deal…I am now also staunchly PRO-LIFE!
An article you apparently won't link.
A botched abortion procedure you're relating as an anecdote is not convincing. All medical intervention tends to look a bit gross, so how bloody it is doesn't really matter.
It wasn’t “botched” as you say. This is how it was done. I’m unable to link the article as it was at least 20 years ago, but it was a factor along with the advancement of videos showing a human being. All we had at one time were black & white sonograms. These could easily be depicted to the untrained eye as just “blobs”. This is what the money maker butchers told us.
” All medical intervention tends to look a bit gross, so how bloody it is doesn't really matter.”
”… it is doesn't really matter.”? A baby is being ripped apart and “it doesn’t really matter” how bloody it is? As I wrote Josef Rudolf Mengele would be so proud of you with your way of thinking.
You need to watch:
“Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer”
“ Operating under the cover of providing “reproductive health services,” death doc Gosnell brutally executed hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable babies by stabbing them in their necks and severing spinal cords with scissors and knives. This twisted murderer kept newborn baby feet in specimen jars, which he crammed into the grisly refrigerators of his filthy “clinic” for “research.”
Give an inch…take a mile.
Edit: “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” is free to watch streaming on PLEX TV
It's more important to me if they actually have any consciousness and feel pain. If they don't, I don't care. I'm also an atheist and I don't care about 'souls'.
>Give an inch…take a mile.
So why haven't European countries started experimenting on babies and children then?
Interesting how you totally DEFLECTED once again from the horrific, barbaric act of a baby being ripped apart. FYI: Read the following and please watch the movie. It’s apparent you know zilch about a baby in the womb being aborted.
Washington, D.C. – A new study “Reconsidering Fetal Pain” confirms that babies in the womb can feel pain as early as 12 weeks old. Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Stuart W.G. Derbyshire and John C. Bockmann state:
“Overall, the evidence, and a balanced reading of the evidence, points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system as early as 12 weeks.”
Dr. David Prentice, Vice President and Research Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute commented:
“Unborn babies feel pain. The science has clearly shown for years that unborn children can perceive pain in the womb, but this is a significant admission by doctors on both sides of the abortion debate, recognizing that even early in human development, the unborn can feel pain. And as the authors note, ‘the mere experience of pain…is morally significant.’ Science again points to the humanity of the unborn.”
https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-shows-unborn-babies-feel-pain-at-12-weeks/
https://www.babygaga.com/20-things-unborn-baby-can-feel-during-pregnancy-that-moms-should-know/#when-mom-is-in-the-bathroom
And you think babies in utero aren’t nothing more than a mosquito being slapped which can lead to a “bloody” mess. 🙄
https://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935428/#:~:text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20the%20American,the%20earliest%2C%E2%80%9D%20(%3E28
Why are your sources better than mine?
Your first source was dated June, 2010.
12 years later, Feb. 2022 negates your first source. In the field of medicine many things can change in 12 years.
Maybe you should read your 2nd source more thoroughly. From it:
”Current neuroscientific evidence indicates the possibility of fetal pain perception during the first trimester (🤷🏼♀️🙄
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/08/british-scientist-says-us-anti-abortion-lawyers-misused-his-work-to-attack-roe-v-wade
An interesting article I found here, related.
And on the article I linked, specifically:
"Other organizations, however, dispute fetal pain capability prior to the presence of a developed cortex, based on the hypothesis of cortical necessity. In the U.K., the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ (RCOG) most recent 2010 report on fetal awareness states that fetal pain is not structurally possible until 24 weeks gestation, and is unlikely to be functionally possible until after birth. In the U.S., the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG 2020) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM 2021) state that fetal pain is not structurally possible until at least 24–25 weeks gestation, that the fetus cannot be conscious of pain “until the third trimester at the earliest,” (>28 weeks gestation), and cannot perceive pain as such until “late in the third trimester” (ACOG 2020). These organizations cite evidence of cortical necessity for pain perception based on a 2005 systematic review study (Lee et al. 2005) and the 2010 RCOG report. The SMFM additionally relies on correlation with case studies of adult post-lobotomy patients dating from the 1950s, some of whom experienced indifference to pain (Terrier, Lévêque, and Amelot 2019). The SMFM notes, however, that correlation with neonatal pain research “cannot be extrapolated to the fetus” because “these reported findings are specific to the neonate” (2021)."
You need to read your source in it’s entirety. You continue to use the 2010 study.
“ As the field of fetal medicine continues to expand, the rate at which fetuses are exposed to noxious stimuli continues to rise. Fetal interventions increasingly include fetal analgesia (pain relief) and anesthesia (loss of physical sensation with or without loss of consciousness) at earlier gestational ages in an effort to alleviate acute pain and to prevent the long-term neuroadaptive consequences of fetal exposure to early or repetitive noxious stimuli (Chatterjee et al. 2021; Gupta, Wimalasundera, and Moore 2021). Additionally, research since 2018 indicates that transplacental transfer of maternal anesthesia is likely insufficient for fetal pain management; therefore, direct fetal analgesia is recommended, administered intramuscularly or via the umbilical vein (Bellieni 2020; Chatterjee et al. 2021)”
BTW, I have no text field left to type. I soon will have maybe enough text field for two words. Not a fun endeavor.
I did click the link, all it says was the election wasn’t stolen which is a negative burden of proof they have taken on which is not only very hard to prove but they also failed miserably at it.
You pointed to a couple of bills proposed by 1 or 2 individuals that got nowhere. In the meantime DemoKKKrats have overwhelmingly wanted to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to black people just because they are black, they want to teach children to judge each other by their skin color and to hate their country, they want zero limits on abortion and want to allow babies who survive botched abortions to die. That is far more radical than anything you pointed to.
https://www.nelp.org/press-clips/can-people-fired-for-refusing-covid-vaccine-still-get-unemployment/
Well then plenty in your cult are all for no limits on abortion and it seems you are too much of a coward to stand up to them, because Fuck Trump is more important I guess.
Because they are illegal immigrants and don’t deserve to vote in elections, they only want them to vote because they think they will vote for them which will allow them to take over the government (illegally) that is fascist.
I am not a UK citizen so I can’t really attest to what goes on in the UK.
You deflected to 2 examples that went nowhere, in the meantime I have pointed to many examples of far left laws that are far more radical that are gaining traction in the DemoKKKrat cult.
>I did click the link, all it says was the election wasn’t stolen which is a negative burden of proof they have taken on which is not only very hard to prove but they also failed miserably at it.
Can you pinpoint where exactly it says that?
The actual title of the link is: "No, The FBI Is NOT ‘Paying Twitter To Censor’"
I did a search on the word "stolen" and it finds one instance of usage in a responding comment. The article literally does not even say "stolen".
>You pointed to a couple of bills proposed by 1 or 2 individuals that got nowhere. In the meantime DemoKKKrats have overwhelmingly wanted to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to black people just because they are black, they want to teach children to judge each other by their skin color and to hate their country, they want zero limits on abortion and want to allow babies who survive botched abortions to die. That is far more radical than anything you pointed to.
I pointed to two bills literally passed by 2 Republican state governments.
>they want to teach children to judge each other by their skin color and to hate their country, they want zero limits on abortion and want to allow babies who survive botched abortions to die. That is far more radical than anything you pointed to.
Is the UK radical then? And I await evidence that Democrats want to scrap all abortion restrictions.
>Well then plenty in your cult are all for no limits on abortion and it seems you are too much of a coward to stand up to them, because Fuck Trump is more important I guess.
Is it? Do you have statistical data on this?
All the article was was an assertion, and it was a negative assertion which is a very hard burden of proof to prove which they failed miserably at.
Those laws are no enforceable because they are clearly unconstitutional and you know damn well if they were really trying to force creationism in schools the far left would shit their pants. On the other hand we have far left radicals trying to teach 1st graders how to masturbate and to judge each other by their skin color.
If what you say is true (and believe me I very much don’t trust you) then yes it is.
Just listen to what your cult leaders are actually saying, they want no limits on abortion.
>All the article was was an assertion, and it was a negative assertion which is a very hard burden of proof to prove which they failed miserably at.
What assertion was that? The article gave a lot of information about the claims regarding Twitter and the FBI.
>Those laws are no enforceable because they are clearly unconstitutional and you know damn well if they were really trying to force creationism in schools the far left would shit their pants. On the other hand we have far left radicals trying to teach 1st graders how to masturbate and to judge each other by their skin color.
I don't know whether or not it is actually enforced, but the point is the Republicans want to implement it.
>If what you say is true (and believe me I very much don’t trust you) then yes it is.
So I'm lying about gun control and abortion access in the Uk?
>Just listen to what your cult leaders are actually saying, they want no limits on abortion.
Any specific sources please?
The article literally gave me nothing to respond to. The article is trying to assert a negative and just saying “nuh uh” isn’t proof.
The vast majority of the Republicans do not want to implement it, you are selectively cherry-picking a couple of Republicans who have the wrong idea which is dishonest. On the other hand the vast majority of DemoKKKrats want teachers to separate the black kids and the white kids and tell the black kids that they are automatically victims and the white kids that they are oppressors and should feel bad.
Never said that. What I said is your honesty is shady, whether or not you are lying here I don’t know.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-dems-silent-katie-hobbs-supports-no-legal-limits-abortion
>The article literally gave me nothing to respond to. The article is trying to assert a negative and just saying “nuh uh” isn’t proof.
I mean, you clearly didn't look at the article. You claimed it was about electoral fraud. It isn't. It's about the claims by Elon Musk that the FBI tried to censor twitter.
>The vast majority of the Republicans do not want to implement it, you are selectively cherry-picking a couple of Republicans who have the wrong idea which is dishonest.
>On the other hand the vast majority of
DemoKKKrats want teachers to separate the black kids and the white kids and tell the black kids that they are automatically victims and the white kids that they are oppressors and should feel bad.
Evidence that Democrats wish to bring in racial segregation in school.
>Never said that. What I said is your honesty is shady, whether or not you are lying here I don’t know.
So what don't you trust about me when I say the UK has gun control, and allows abortion?
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/top-dems-silent-katie-hobbs-supports-no-legal-limits-abortion
This is a candidate. I recall a Republican candidate who once supported stoning gay people:
https://www.newsweek.com/gop-candidate-saying-totally-just-kill-gay-people-resurfaces-oklahoma-1735846
I did read the article, all it was was baseless assertions.
I just showed you evidence that DemoKKKrats want racial segregation in schools.
I have already caught you lying, I don’t trust most of what you say.
Wow one Republican nut job. He’s pretty much on the same level of crazy as your average DemoKKKrat. Hardly the big picture, kiddo.
>I did read the article, all it was was baseless assertions.
The article you thought was about accusations of electoral fraud, but actually was about Elon Musk's claims? I flat out do not believe you.
>I just showed you evidence that DemoKKKrats want racial segregation in schools.
Source please.
>I have already caught you lying, I don’t trust most of what you say.
But you just said that you don't think I am lying about UK having gun control and abortion access. So by your logic, UK is fascist?
>Wow one Republican nut job. He’s pretty much on the same level of crazy as your average DemoKKKrat. Hardly the big picture, kiddo.
https://www.metroweekly.com/2023/01/this-republican-compared-lgbtq-people-to-drug-addicts/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/us/politics/after-roe-republicans-sharpen-attacks-on-gay-and-transgender-rights.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texas-gops-new-platform-calls-gay-people-abnormal-rejects-trans-identi-rcna34530
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/
Believe me or not, you aren't going to hurt my feelings.
I already showed you the source, the fact that you are unwilling to read is your fault.
I said if I were to believe you then that would be fascist, again work on your reading comprehension, kiddo.
You are citing just a couple of extreme examples of some dopy comments that the Republican party largely is not behind. The DemoKKKrat party is however largely behind murdering their political opponents and teaching racist ideology to children.
>Believe me or not, you aren't going to hurt my feelings.
Explain to me why you got the topic of the article wrong repeatedly. You thought it was about electoral fraud, when it was actually about Elon Musks claims that the FBI censored Twitter. Why did you repeatedly make this basic error?
>I already showed you the source, the fact that you are unwilling to read is your fault.
No you didn't. I recall no link by you that suggests a Democrat policy to enforce segregation.
>I said if I were to believe you then that would be fascist, again work on your reading comprehension, kiddo.
You believing what I say about my own country... is fascist? Huh?
>You are citing just a couple of extreme examples of some dopy comments that the Republican party largely is not behind. The DemoKKKrat party is however largely behind murdering their political opponents and teaching racist ideology to children.
Do you not think it's a problem if a state AG endorses that shit? Or the entire Texas Republican Party endorsing a Russian-style platform when it comes to gay rights?
Why are the utterances of one elected Democrat regarding unlimited abortion somehow relevant, but not elected Republicans about persecuting gay people?
So where is the DemoKKKrat party putting an end to this segregation shit which I thought they hated? Their silence is all we need to know their true intentions.
I have proven you are a liar so for all I know you're lying about your own country.
Those bills don't have a chance of going anywhere and you know the left wing in this country will threaten to kill the laws makers if they push it. You are pointing to fringe examples that are very much not endorsed by mainstream Republicans, murdering political opponents is very much widely endorsed by the DemoKKKrats, that's the difference.
Russian style platform? What are you talking about? No one is telling anyone they can't be gay.
DemoKKKrats are widely in favor of killing babies who survive botched abortions, you are seriously killing me with these false equivalences.
>So where is the DemoKKKrat party putting an end to this segregation shit which I thought they hated? Their silence is all we need to know their true intentions.
What segregation are you referring to here specifically?
>I have proven you are a liar so for all I know you're lying about your own country.
You think that UK might ban abortion and has no gun control?
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021#:~:text=214%2C869%20abortions%20were%20reported%20in,women%20aged%2015%20to%2044.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58198857
>Those bills don't have a chance of going anywhere and you know the left wing in this country will threaten to kill the laws makers if they push it.
One wasn't a bill per se, it was the Texas AG saying that
>You are pointing to fringe examples that are very much not endorsed by mainstream Republicans, murdering political opponents is very much widely endorsed by the DemoKKKrats, that's the difference.
No evidence for this whatsoever. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did not say what you claim.
>DemoKKKrats are widely in favor of killing babies who survive botched abortions, you are seriously killing me with these false equivalences.
You referenced one democrat. You didn't answer the main point. Why is one democrat somehow representative of the entire democratic party, but when I point to a Republican it's just some lone nutter?
>Russian style platform? What are you talking about? No one is telling anyone they can't be gay.
I believe that's where it'll end up going, down the line, if no opposition is presented. A ban on "LGBT propaganda" for all under 18s.
I stated quite clearly that the libtards want to split the black kids and the white kids up and teach the black kids that they are victims and that society owes them something while teaching the white kids they are oppressors and should feel bad.
You have an AG saying something, not exactly a sweeping movement now is it? You've also failed to establish that anyone wants to force creationism on anyone.
HUGE difference, the stuff I am citing is supported by the vast majority of the DemoKKKrat cult, the stuff you cite is supported by maybe a few fringe Republicans that no one is taking seriously anyways and the stuff I am citing is far more extreme. Again you are arguing false equivalences.
Pure speculation, you have no evidence to support your bullshit
>I stated quite clearly that the libtards want to split the black kids and the white kids up and teach the black kids that they are victims and that society owes them something while teaching the white kids they are oppressors and should feel bad.
You did. You never really substantiated it though with any actual evidence.
>You have an AG saying something, not exactly a sweeping movement now is it? You've also failed to establish that anyone wants to force creationism on anyone.
The AG was the guy saying he'd enforce the sodomy law on Texans. And I didn't say it was so much a movement these days, but that there are republicans who call for it.
>HUGE difference, the stuff I am citing is supported by the vast majority of the DemoKKKrat cult, the stuff you cite is supported by maybe a few fringe Republicans that no one is taking seriously anyways and the stuff I am citing is far more extreme. Again you are arguing false equivalences.
I await evidence that the majority of Democrats all support no limits whatsover on abortion. And I don't know how imposing sodomy laws on people is somehow more extreme than abortion.
>Pure speculation, you have no evidence to support your bullshit
My suggestion that the Republican party will orient itself to eventually trying to ban all LGBT content for under 18s, is speculation. Never said otherwise. Although plenty of Republican members of congress have said ignorant stupid shit over the years about LGBT people.
I posted an entire article backing it up.
And how far has he gotten with that? Doubtful he’s gotten very far because very few people in our country are going to go along with it. You are cherry-picking the most fringe examples and then trying to falsely assert that all mainstream Republicans are like that, it’s dishonest and it’s absurd.
I have already provided proof, you not liking the answer isn’t a reason to dismiss it.
Get off your pedestal about LGBT rights, no one is trying to limit their rights, what we are against is exposing children to drag queens and pornographic material, we are against teachers telling students about their sexualities and we are against teaching children that if you are straight then you owe something to the LGBT community, people like yourself lie and say that if you are against those things then you are against gay people. It’s dishonest and a strawman.
EDIT: Your cult is also for school counselors telling children to identify as the other gender and then not tell their parents, far more extreme than anything the Republicans are proposing.
>I posted an entire article backing it up.
I don't recall it. Please repost if you did.
>And how far has he gotten with that? Doubtful he’s gotten very far because very few people in our country are going to go along with it. You are cherry-picking the most fringe examples and then trying to falsely assert that all mainstream Republicans are like that, it’s dishonest and it’s absurd.
Again, not sure why it's acceptable for you to cite one Democrat representative supporting no-limits abortion as somehow representative of all Democrats... but when I do the same for a Republican, that's wrong?
>I have already provided proof, you not liking the answer isn’t a reason to dismiss it.
No, you sourced one Democrat. Your article even suggested other Democrats trying to distance themselves from them.
Go back and read.
Because the vast majority of DemoKKKrats support no limits on abortions, they even attacked the SCOTUS over it. Again false equivalence.
Again you not liking the answer is irrelevant.
>Go back and read.
No. Needle in a haystack at this point.
>Because the vast majority of DemoKKKrats support no limits on abortions, they even attacked the SCOTUS over it. Again false equivalence.
Evidence that most Democrats support no limit abortions please.
>Again you not liking the answer is irrelevant.
You missed my point. I give you nutty Republicand and you just dismiss them as lone wolves. Yet apparently 1 Democrat is enough to define the entire Democrat party platform?
So you’re unwilling to read the evidence you asked for?
I already posted evidence.
You gave me two or three possibly nutty Republicans and judging by your far left sources I have every reason to doubt them. I literally posted stuff that the DemoKKKrat cult is largely behind, again False Equivalence on your part.
>Because they are illegal immigrants and don’t deserve to vote in elections, they only want them to vote because they think they will vote for them which will allow them to take over the government (illegally) that is fascist.
Wanting to expand the voting franchise is the opposite of fascism. If you have some instances of illegal immigrants being allowed to vote currently, and having voted in meaningful numbers, feel free to provide evidence of this.
>I am not a UK citizen so I can’t really attest to what goes on in the UK.
Your premise was that abortion access and gun control = fascism. Why would that only apply when in the USA?
>You deflected to 2 examples that went nowhere, in the meantime I have pointed to many examples of far left laws that are far more radical that are gaining traction in the DemoKKKrat cult.
Gun control is radical in Europe?
Also, I pointed to two bills forcing creationism in the classroom literally passed by two state Republican parties. And the Texas AG saying he would be happy to enforce sodomy laws assuming the supreme court overturned the restrictions there.
The DemoKKKrats want illegal immigrants to vote in elections which is illegal. Should I get to vote in the UK election if I enter the country illegally?
OK if what you say is true (and I very much have reasons not to trust you) then yes it is fascist.
Gun control is radical.
The bills went nowhere, no one is forcing creationism in school, most of the right is against it, it’s not going to happen either as it clearly violates separation of church and state and it’s not scientific. Yes SOCAS is a law despite not being in the constitution. Nice try numb nuts. On the other hand your cult wants to teach 1st graders how to masturbate and separate the black kids and the white kids so they can teach the white kids that they are by default oppressors and should feel bad while they teach the black kids that they are by default victims just because of their skin color.
>The DemoKKKrats want illegal immigrants to vote in elections which is illegal. Should I get to vote in the UK election if I enter the country illegally?
Are you referring to a law being proposed here that extends the franchise? Can you be more specific please?
>OK if what you say is true (and I very much have reasons not to trust you) then yes it is fascist.
So you are doubting me when I say that the UK has strong gun control measures, and abortion is available?
And that makes us fascist? Can you define what "fascism" means please?
>The bills went nowhere, no one is forcing creationism in school, most of the right is against it, it’s not going to happen either as it clearly violates separation of church and state and it’s not scientific.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/04/08/tennessee-republicans-inherit-the-wind-pass-creationism-bill/?sh=ad0c2b577156
The bill literally passed with an overwhelming majority.
>Nice try numb nuts. On the other hand your cult wants to teach 1st graders how to masturbate and separate the black kids and the white kids so they can teach the white kids that they are by default oppressors and should feel bad while they teach the black kids that they are by default victims just because of their skin color.
Any particular bills to reference here?
The DemoKKKrats literally opened the border which has resulted in child trafficking, drug trafficking and death. They just want them to vote in elections because they think they will vote DemoKKKrat. That’s why they didn’t let Cuban refugees in, they are likely to vote Republican. They are trying to dilute the vote of US citizens which is fascist.
Never said that.
Your article was an opinion piece that said the bill would make it easier to “teach creationism”, also the bill even by your own spin wouldn’t require the teaching of creationism. See why I don’t trust you here?
https://www.hoover.org/research/californias-education-department-chooses-critical-race-theory-over-100000-objections
>The DemoKKKrats literally opened the border which has resulted in child trafficking, drug trafficking and death.
Are you referring to a specific executive order, or policy here?
>They just want them to vote in elections because they think they will vote DemoKKKrat. That’s why they didn’t let Cuban refugees in, they are likely to vote Republican. They are trying to dilute the vote of US citizens which is fascist.
Sorry, is there a bill that expands the franchise to illegal immigrants? Please source your claims.
>Never said that.
Okay, so the UK is fascist?
>Your article was an opinion piece that said the bill would make it easier to “teach creationism”, also the bill even by your own spin wouldn’t require the teaching of creationism. See why I don’t trust you here?
Making it easier still demonstrates that many Republicans want to bring it back into scientific classrooms.
https://ncse.ngo/tennessee-antievolution-bill-passes-house
Here is the source.
Do some research, kiddo. Our border is wide open and illegal crossings are at an all time high and the DemoKKKrats are busy demonizing border patrol.
They definitely plan on giving them voting rights.
Never said that.
Your own article doesn’t back up what you said and not only that but it was a pure editorial. You are drowning, kiddo
>Do some research, kiddo. Our border is wide open and illegal crossings are at an all time high and the DemoKKKrats are busy demonizing border patrol.
I'll ask again: Are you referring to a specific executive order, or policy here?
>They definitely plan on giving them voting rights.
Based on what?
>Never said that.
Great. So restricting gun access and allowing abortion has nothing to do with fascism.
>Your own article doesn’t back up what you said and not only that but it was a pure editorial. You are drowning, kiddo
"The bill, if enacted, would require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught." The only examples provided of "controversial" theories are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." "
I'm referring to the DemoKKKrats actions, if you watched something other than fake news you'd know.
Based on their previous behavior and the fact that if the illegals have children here then the children are US citizens who will have voting rights. The DemoKKKrats don't give 2 fucks about the immigrants they just want a larger voting base so they can dilute the demographic that doesn't vote for them.
I didn't say either way, quit putting words in my mouth, kiddo.
You clearly don't know the first thing about science, you are supposed to question science, you are supposed to try to disprove it and find new evidence. Your quote says absolutely NOTHING about creationism. If we try to disprove evolution and we fail then that just means we have all the more reason to accept evolution. Educate yourself, kiddo.
>I'm referring to the DemoKKKrats actions, if you watched something other than fake news you'd know.
Show me some examples here please.
>Based on their previous behavior and the fact that if the illegals have children here then the children are US citizens who will have voting rights.
What "previous behaviour"?
Regarding the kids of illegal immigrants becoming citizens. Is this some new law, or has it been a law for some time? Can you please tell me what you're referring to?
>I didn't say either way, quit putting words in my mouth, kiddo.
When I much earlier asked you what makes the Democrats fascist, you referred to both abortion rights and gun restrictions.
>You clearly don't know the first thing about science, you are supposed to question science, you are supposed to try to disprove it and find new evidence. Your quote says absolutely NOTHING about creationism. If we try to disprove evolution and we fail then that just means we have all the more reason to accept evolution. Educate yourself, kiddo.
You do realise the Republicans there specifically citated evolution as a "controversial" theory, which is their way of effectively creating a false dichtonomy where creationism is somehow a competing scientific theory to evolution.
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC8y-Gm2cFU
The DemoKKKrats have repeatedly said they want to give illegal immigrants amnesty (just so they'll vote for them) and children of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens. Educate yourself, kiddo.
You said I said that the UK was fascist, I didn't. I said if I were to believe you then it is. You lied again.
Evolution should be challenged, all science should be challenged, that's how we know that the current research we are reading is the most reliable because it was challenged and not debunked. "party of science" my ass. You don't even know the basic principles of it. Evolution is a fact and I encourage anyone to challenge it, they will probably fail and it will strengthen our assurance that Evolution is correct.
>Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC8y-Gm2cFU
So you're referring to Trump-era restrictions being lifted?
>The DemoKKKrats have repeatedly said they want to give illegal immigrants amnesty (just so they'll vote for them) and children of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens. Educate yourself, kiddo.
Can I see some sources on this specifically?
>You said I said that the UK was fascist, I didn't. I said if I were to believe you then it is. You lied again.
I said that if you're suggesting that gun control and abortion access are markers of fascism, then that would by your reasoning, making the Uk fascist.
>Evolution should be challenged, all science should be challenged, that's how we know that the current research we are reading is the most reliable because it was challenged and not debunked. "party of science" my ass. You don't even know the basic principles of it. Evolution is a fact and I encourage anyone to challenge it, they will probably fail and it will strengthen our assurance that Evolution is correct.
Should the earth being round be challenged in science classes? Because that's sort of where many Republicans belief. That creationism should be taught alongside evolution as an alternative theory.
Illegal immigration was at an all time low under Trump, Diaper Joe came in, lifted all of Trumps effective policies and now we have all time high levels of illegal immigration including drug cartels and child traffikers, Diaper Joe has blood on his hands.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-push-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-back-burner-multiple-defeats
And I have every reason to believe you are lying about the UK, I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying I don't trust you (and with good reason)
I never said to challenge evolution in science class, dumbass. I said we should constantly be doing more research into it and throwing it out if there is refuting evidence. If there is strong evidence the Earth is flat then we should throw out the model that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
>Illegal immigration was at an all time low under Trump, Diaper Joe came in, lifted all of Trumps effective policies and now we have all time high levels of illegal immigration including drug cartels and child traffikers, Diaper Joe has blood on his hands.
I await evidence that drug trafficking is at an all-time high.
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-push-amnesty-illegal-immigrants-back-burner-multiple-defeats
Okay. Finally. Not sure why this should bother me.
>And I have every reason to believe you are lying about the UK, I'm not saying you are lying, I'm saying I don't trust you (and with good reason)
I've literally given you multiple sources about the UK gun control and abortions.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58198857
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020
>I never said to challenge evolution in science class, dumbass. I said we should constantly be doing more research into it and throwing it out if there is refuting evidence. If there is strong evidence the Earth is flat then we should throw out the model that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Right. But that's not what Republicans often mean when they say "challenge" here. They're talking about suggesting 'intelligent design' is currently some credible valid alternative to evolution that scientists believe in, and informing students of this in biology studies.
I said that illegal immigration is at an all time high (which it is), and Diaper Joe is allowing drug traffickers to cross our borders. Since you don’t seem to think it’s a big deal why don’t we send them over to the UK, would you like that?
In the UK does your government tell people of a certain demographic that they are victims, that they aren’t accountable for their actions and that they should go burn, loot and murder? Does your government also release violent felons? If not then it’s another non sequitur. In our country the DemoKKKrats want to release violent murderers from jail and then take away our ability to defend ourselves and defund the police. They want people who obey the law but don’t vote DemoKKKrat to be dead.
Republicans are not for that! Creationists are like Eric Hovind who is a complete and utter nut job, but most Republicans are not that crazy. Either way it’s not as harmful as what the DemoKKKrats want to be taught in school (to hate each other based on skin color, to hate the cops and to hate the country)
>I said that illegal immigration is at an all time high (which it is), and Diaper Joe is allowing drug traffickers to cross our borders. Since you don’t seem to think it’s a big deal why don’t we send them over to the UK, would you like that?
Specifically drug traffickers, or is that incidental? Are the Democrats saying that drug traffickers should be allowed in?
>In the UK does your government tell people of a certain demographic that they are victims, that they aren’t accountable for their actions and that they should go burn, loot and murder?
No. Neither does your government. Your misquotes aren't evidence.
> Does your government also release violent felons?
Who has been released?
>If not then it’s another non sequitur. In our country the DemoKKKrats want to release violent murderers from jail and then take away our ability to defend ourselves and defund the police.
Examples?
>Republicans are not for that! Creationists are like Eric Hovind who is a complete and utter nut job, but most Republicans are not that crazy. Either way it’s not as harmful as what the DemoKKKrats want to be taught in school (to hate each other based on skin color, to hate the cops and to hate the country)
Evidence please
I didn’t say anything about DemoKKKrats wanting drug traffickers to come in. I said they have allowed illegal immigrants in and many are drug traffickers. Don’t strawman me again.
No our government very much does and they even want to implement racist school curriculum that teaches black kids that they are victims, aren’t accountable for their actions and that society owes them something because of their skin color. Does your government do that? Does your government have no bail laws and release violent criminals out onto the streets?
https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bail-fund-backed-by-kamala-harris-freed-man-charged-with-murder/
You said they are largely for it, why don’t you post evidence? So far you haven’t.
>Funny how you’re willing to chalk sports drinks vs. injuries up to an “indirect” relationship but you aren’t however whenever it backs up your cults talking points.
Except we know why sportspeople are more likely to suffer knee injuries.
>Not my burden of proof, that’s all you kiddo.
I've already made the argument. You not accepting it is up to you.
>How is it a religious interpretation? Please explain how you need religion to arrive at that conclusion when all you really need is biology, the baby has two sets of chromosomes , it’s a life you evil scumbag.
Because it is often down to imbuing an fetus with a sort of "soul". That's not how the majority of people without religion think it. Care to tell me why anti-abortion attitudes are prominent mostly in more Christian countries?
And do you think most of the people in the UK are "evil scumbags", by this logic?
>Your article clearly said that SOCAS was “interpreted” that’s the job of the SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution, I agree with the interpretation but SOCAS is nowhere to be found in the constitution, again educate yourself.
So would you be happy if SOCA struck it down and suddenly a Republican Congress started to implement pro-Christian laws?
No it really isn’t, it’s about a life with 2 sets of chromosomes. You literally can arrive at that conclusion without being religious, it just takes a basic understanding of biology.
Your second point is a strawman, I said a long time ago I support SOCAS
>No it really isn’t, it’s about a life with 2 sets of chromosomes. You literally can arrive at that conclusion without being religious, it just takes a basic understanding of biology.
It's a life, but not a baby. It comes down to value one imbues upon a potential life - often it takes a religious presupposition of 'soul' in order to imprint an idea of babyhood. A fetus does not think. It does not know. It is a potential life, tied to the mother.
If your premise was right, we'd see equal opposition to abortion in the UK as we see in the USA - but we don't. Why is this?
You just said it’s a life so therefore it’s immoral to kill him/her. Baby’s don’t know what’s going on either, is it OK to kill them once they have come out of the mother?
The fact that UK is OK with it is irrelevant and a non sequitur. Try better next time, junior.
>You just said it’s a life so therefore it’s immoral to kill him/her.
It's not born. It's a life in the broadest sense: it's organic. I am supportive of the right to abortion.
>Baby’s don’t know what’s going on either, is it OK to kill them once they have come out of the mother?
They feel pain at that point, and are no longer tied to the mother. Different situation entirely.
>The fact that UK is OK with it is irrelevant and a non sequitur. Try better next time, junior.
It's not irrelevant the point that opposition to abortion almost always tracks with religiosity. UK is irreligious. USA is not. Netherlands is irreligious. Poland is not. Patterns exist.
What’s the difference whether it is inside or outside the mother? You just said it’s a life.
Baby’s can feel pain while inside the mother, not a different situation entirely.
Again I have yet to hear a compelling reason why religion is the only way to arrive at the conclusion that abortion is immoral. You have yet to establish that the two have to be connected, the fact that some people use religion as a reason to be against abortion is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. I reject your false premise and logical fallacies.
>What’s the difference whether it is inside or outside the mother? You just said it’s a life.
A woman has a right to choose what is growing inside their body. After it is born, it exists independently.
>Baby’s can feel pain while inside the mother, not a different situation entirely.
https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a-fetus-feel-pain-in-the-womb
>Again I have yet to hear a compelling reason why religion is the only way to arrive at the conclusion that abortion is immoral. You have yet to establish that the two have to be connected, the fact that some people use religion as a reason to be against abortion is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. I reject your false premise and logical fallacies.
I did not say it was the *only* reason, but that it is often the motivating argument for most people. That's why secular countries are massively pro-abortion, and religious countries (at least the Judeo-Christian tradition) are not.
She had the right to choose when she chose to have sex, after that she and the man made their beds so they should lie in them.
https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/
The fact that it’s the motivating argument for some people is irrelevant, it isn’t a religious issue, just like how the Bible says don’t murder yet being against murder isn’t a religious issue. It’s a moral and ethical issue. You are intentionally being dishonest
>She had the right to choose when she chose to have sex, after that she and the man made their beds so they should lie in them.
This is an ideological position. Not a scientific one.
>https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/
Why is your source better than WebMd? Or these sources:
https://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.long
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8935428/#:~:text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20the%20American,the%20earliest%2C%E2%80%9D%20(%3E28
>The fact that it’s the motivating argument for some people is irrelevant, it isn’t a religious issue, just like how the Bible says don’t murder yet being against murder isn’t a religious issue. It’s a moral and ethical issue. You are intentionally being dishonest
I am noting that opposition to abortion tracks religious very strongly.
It is a scientific position. If she hadn’t had sex then she wouldn’t have to worry about anything. It’s also common sense and a little thing called personal responsibility, if you want to make adult decisions that’s on you but adult decisions come with adult consequences.
My source is backed up by scientific research.
How? Because some people use religion as a justification to oppose abortion isn’t evidence.
>It is a scientific position. If she hadn’t had sex then she wouldn’t have to worry about anything. It’s also common sense and a little thing called personal responsibility, if you want to make adult decisions that’s on you but adult decisions come with adult consequences.
Your opinion that she has to bring the child to birth is the ideological position.
>My source is backed up by scientific research.
And how are mine not?
>How? Because some people use religion as a justification to oppose abortion isn’t evidence.
I am referring to statistical data. Most people who oppose abortion are religious.
The scientific position is that she is carrying a baby who can feel pain and from a moral standpoint it’s immoral to kill the child. Nothing religious needed.
I just proved that your “research” was flawed and disinformation.
Again you have to establish a connection between the two. You know more people who drink sports drinks have bad knees. Does that mean sports drinks cause bad knees?
>The scientific position is that she is carrying a baby who can feel pain and from a moral standpoint it’s immoral to kill the child. Nothing religious needed.
I await evidence that backs this up morally.
>I just proved that your “research” was flawed and disinformation.
No you didn't. You made no comment on my sources.
>Again you have to establish a connection between the two. You know more people who drink sports drinks have bad knees. Does that mean sports drinks cause bad knees?
Religion imprints the idea of a 'soul' that begins at conception, or at least it does with Christianity. That makes Christians much more likely to oppose abortion.
Why is it most atheists do not oppose abortion?
I already posted evidence.
Yes I did and I posted actual scientific articles that refuted your opinion piece.
You didn’t answer my question, why does someone need to be religious to oppose abortion. And quit asking me to disprove your baseless assertions. You have the burden of proof, kiddo and lay off the logical fallacies.
>I already posted evidence.
No, you made a moral claim. Scientific =/= moral.
>Yes I did and I posted actual scientific articles that refuted your opinion piece.
https://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.long
This isn't an opinion piece.
>You didn’t answer my question, why does someone need to be religious to oppose abortion. And quit asking me to disprove your baseless assertions. You have the burden of proof, kiddo and lay off the logical fallacies.
I didn't say they /needed/ to be - it's just statistically much more likely that they will be.
And I backed up my claim with scientific evidence.
It very much was an opinion piece.
Then your entire religion = pro-life nonsense is fallacious and inconclusive.
>And I backed up my claim with scientific evidence.
No you didn't. You made a moral claim.
>It very much was an opinion piece.
How is it an opinion piece?
>Then your entire religion = pro-life nonsense is fallacious and inconclusive.
My position is that being religious makes it much more likely that you're pro-life, statistically.
I literally posted a research paper.
The author just spouted out their personal opinion, there you go.
And that's a non-sequitur, you still haven't established it has anything to do with religion. Do sports drinks cause knee injuries?
>I literally posted a research paper.
And how is mine not?
>The author just spouted out their personal opinion, there you go.
You clearly did not read this: https://fn.bmj.com/content/96/4/F236.long
>And that's a non-sequitur, you still haven't established it has anything to do with religion. Do sports drinks cause knee injuries?
Religious ideals, or at least the Judeo-Christian tradition imbues the idea of 'life at conception', so it indirectly does. And no, but playing sports (or certain types) make it more likely you'll get knee injuries.
Yours was not backed up by scientific research, it was just more baseless libtard claims.
Again you're arguing non sequiturs. You can be against abortion and not be religious, you don't have to be religious to think it's immoral.
Thank you for conceding, learn how cause and effect relationships work, kiddo.
>Yours was not backed up by scientific research, it was just more baseless libtard claims.
Based on what? I literally gave you the source. What makes it a "libtard" article? It's literally a correspondence between doctors.
>Again you're arguing non sequiturs. You can be against abortion and not be religious, you don't have to be religious to think it's immoral.
You can, but most people who do oppose abortion tend to be religious. That's just a basic reading of the data.
>Thank you for conceding, learn how cause and effect relationships work, kiddo.
As I said - religion imbues in it a sense of a soul reportedly granted at birth, which atheists and other secular-leaning people naturally do not believe in.
You arguing it's just some weird concidence is utterly bizarre.
No it wasn’t, it was just a bunch of baseless assertions, mine is at least back up by scientific research. Babies in the womb can feel pain, numb nuts.
And it’s 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Again sports drinks don’t cause knee injuries.
More non-sequiturs.
>No it wasn’t, it was just a bunch of baseless assertions, mine is at least back up by scientific research. Babies in the womb can feel pain, numb nuts.
You clearly didn't read it.
>And it’s 100% irrelevant to this discussion. Again sports drinks don’t cause knee injuries.
But there is a correlation between knee injuries and involvement in a ton of sports.
>More non-sequiturs.
There's clearly a pattern, and we can do some good guesses about why this pattern exists.
I did
Not what I asked, do sports drinks cause knee injures.
You can speculate all you want but until you establish a convincing cause and effect model you’re just talking out of your anus.
>I did
Since you misunderstood the actual link I sent you regarding the Techdirt link on Elon Musks twitter claims, I am inclined to not believe you.
>Not what I asked, do sports drinks cause knee injures.
No.
>You can speculate all you want but until you establish a convincing cause and effect model you’re just talking out of your anus.
This is genuine brain worms. People are influenced by the ethos of their religion. It's why religious people (of the Judeo-Christian variety) also tend to be much more homophobic.
Too bad for you.
But more people who drink sports drinks have knee injuries?
I’m still waiting for you to establish a cause and effect relationship.
>But more people who drink sports drinks have knee injuries?
I don't know. Do you have data on this? If so, it would be because they are inclined to play sports which brings them into closer likelihood of being injured.
>I’m still waiting for you to establish a cause and effect relationship.
I already have made this argument. People are influenced by the ethos of their religion. It's why religious people (of the Judeo-Christian variety) also tend to be much more homophobic. Christianity imprints the notion of a 'soul' at conception.
So then even though the data says that sports drinks and injuries have a direct relationship that doesn’t mean that one affects the other, correct?
As for your second point just pretend it’s the sports drink vs. knee injuries scenario.
>So then even though the data says that sports drinks and injuries have a direct relationship that doesn’t mean that one affects the other, correct?
Where does the data say this? We can explain any indirect association with sport drinks and injuries.
What's the alternative explanation for why religious people tend to be much more anti-abortion?
Funny how you’re willing to chalk sports drinks vs. injuries up to an “indirect” relationship but you aren’t however whenever it backs up your cults talking points.
Not my burden of proof, that’s all you kiddo.
>I didn’t say anything about DemoKKKrats wanting drug traffickers to come in. I said they have allowed illegal immigrants in and many are drug traffickers. Don’t strawman me again.
"Allowing" certainly implies tolerance for it.
>No our government very much does and they even want to implement racist school curriculum that teaches black kids that they are victims, aren’t accountable for their actions and that society owes them something because of their skin color. Does your government do that? Does your government have no bail laws and release violent criminals out onto the streets?
Evidence please.
>https://nypost.com/2021/09/08/bail-fund-backed-by-kamala-harris-freed-man-charged-with-murder/
There's nuance here:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-kamala-harris-back-bail-fund-murderers-rapists-1754314
More Kamala Harris political incompetence than malice.
>You said they are largely for it, why don’t you post evidence? So far you haven’t.
Republicans?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
Less than half believe in evolution, albeit this is a nearly 10 year old poll.
>Either way it’s not as harmful as what the DemoKKKrats want to be taught in school (to hate each other based on skin color, to hate the cops and to hate the country)
Evidence please.
I already posted it.
No it’s not just incompetence, she let violent offenders out of jail and some went on to kill more people. KKKamala has blood on her hands. She did promote the bail fund all because it would help her politically at the time. She’s a piece of shit.
“Less than half believe in evolution”, that wasn’t what I asked.
I already posted it. Critical Race Theory is racist, Marxist, far left propaganda and it’s child abuse.
>I already posted it.
So you claim. Until you post it again (I don't recall and I am not looking for it), I will continue to ask.
>No it’s not just incompetence, she let violent offenders out of jail and some went on to kill more people. KKKamala has blood on her hands. She did promote the bail fund all because it would help her politically at the time. She’s a piece of shit.
Evidence that Kamala Harris specifically let violent offenders out of jail that went on to kill more.
>“Less than half believe in evolution”, that wasn’t what I asked.
No, but it's the data there is.
>I already posted it. Critical Race Theory is racist, Marxist, far left propaganda and it’s child abuse.
I don't get how it's marxist. And is this national Democrat policy to be imposed on all schools?
You clearly didn’t read what I posted, that’s on you.
I showed you evidence, she supported the bail fund which let violent criminals out of prison and some of them went to go murder innocent people, she has blood on her hands and she’s a murderer.
I didn’t say anything about evolution, not sure why you’re talking about it.
The DemoKKKrats want it to be imposed on all schools, fortunately governors like Ron DeSantis has the integrity to stand up to this racist nonsense, also am I correct that we are in agreement that CRT is racist and child abuse?
If you refuse to actually post sources, you can just fuck off fascist.
>I didn’t say anything about evolution, not sure why you’re talking about it.
Indirectly related to creationism - if more Republicans reject evolution, it likely implies more support for creationism.
>The DemoKKKrats want it to be imposed on all schools, fortunately governors like Ron DeSantis has the integrity to stand up to this racist nonsense, also am I correct that we are in agreement that CRT is racist and child abuse?
Evidence please
I already have, you just refuse to read.
“Indirectly” is the key word. Your non sequitur argument about evolution is irrelevant. Also I’m not sure if you realize this but evolution says NOTHING about where life came from. Go pick up a science book, fucktard.
I already posted, you refused to read.
>I already have, you just refuse to read.
No, I refuse to trapse through the hundreds of posts here to find it (if you indeed posted it and are not just lying).
>“Indirectly” is the key word. Your non sequitur argument about evolution is irrelevant. Also I’m not sure if you realize this but evolution says NOTHING about where life came from. Go pick up a science book, fucktard.
I know that it doesn't. But creationists do not realise this. Hence why they propose 'intelligent design' as an alternative.
>I already posted, you refused to read.
No you did not. Liar.
Then that’s your problem.
Not accepting evolution doesn’t mean that you support creationism. Sure more people who don’t accept evolution probably accept creationism but you still have to establish a cause and effect relationship. Again sports drinks don’t cause knee injuries.
Yes I did. Liar.
>Not accepting evolution doesn’t mean that you support creationism. Sure more people who don’t accept evolution probably accept creationism but you still have to establish a cause and effect relationship. Again sports drinks don’t cause knee injuries.
But playing sports does makes knee injuries more likely. The common trend here is that people who play sports are also additionally likely to consume sports drinks. I'm sure you think it's just one of those unexplained mysteries why Christians tend to be less supportive of evolution than everyone else.
>Yes I did. Liar.
I literally just used the Chrome search tool to filter for "abortion" on this thread, and found no instance where you sourced a link for your claim that most Democrats support no limits on abortion.
Your refusal to post it means I will consider you a liar forever.
I didn't say anything about playing sports, I said drinking sports drinks. You can drink sports drinks and not play sports. The problem you have is in one situation you are willing to connect the dots as far as you have to to arrive at the conclusion that you want yet you aren't willing to do that in the other scenario.
I did provide a link, you refuse to read you liar.
>I didn't say anything about playing sports, I said drinking sports drinks. You can drink sports drinks and not play sports. The problem you have is in one situation you are willing to connect the dots as far as you have to to arrive at the conclusion that you want yet you aren't willing to do that in the other scenario.
I await data that apparently shows a correlation between drinking sports drinks and knee injuries then.
>I did provide a link, you refuse to read you liar.
I used the Chrome search tool to filter for "abortion" on this thread, and found no instance where you sourced a link for your claim that most Democrats support no limits on abortion. Liar.
I never said there was, but by your logic they are related.
That's your problem, numb nuts. Next time do some research on the next cult you decide to align with.
>I never said there was, but by your logic they are related.
I assumed you were actually referring to some statistics. If you're not, then it's a completely irrelevent analogy.
>That's your problem, numb nuts. Next time do some research on the next cult you decide to align with.
It's my problem that you lied about providing a source that showed most Democrats support no limits on abortion? The only source you provided was an instance of a single elected Democrat representative supporting it - and in which other Democrats distanced them from it.
That is not the same as data that suggests that most Democrats support no restrictions on abortion at all.
The only sickos are Republicunts who care more about unborn babies than doing anything to stop more *actual children* from being killed with *GUNS*.
shareWrong! We try to address the underlying cause and increase security for schools and you dumb fucks fight us at every turn. You don't care about children at all. You only voice an opinion here because it fits the agenda.
shareDemoKKKrats are the ones who are letting violent criminals out of prison so they can go kill people, until you are ready to denounce your cult leaders for releasing violent criminals you have zero moral authority here numb nuts. The DemoKKKrats love violence, they only pretend to not like it when they can politicize it.
share100% truth. Why else would Biden make jokes and talk about ice cream? Because he doesn't give a shit. To them, a dead Christian is a good Christian. If it had been a white dude shooting up a black school, totally different reaction.
shareNot only that but he laughed when asked if it was a hate crime. He literally wants his mob to kill “MAGA” children. He’s a sick son of a bitch.
share>Maybe if you will take a stand against the far left tying J6 to Donald Trump I might take you seriously. Or the way they blamed the shooting of Gabby Gifford on Sarah Palin. The Huffington Post is a far left fake news source so they are probably lying anyways.
Lying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up66UW0GENQ
There's a literal clip of him saying it.
---
Also, whilst I don't think Palin incited the murder of Giffords - by the same logic you use on Biden, she absolutely did.
All he did was speculate, I’m sure he really believes it. Your cult speculates all the time so get over it.
shareRight. But it's clearly showing his anti-atheist bigotry. That's my point. Any thoughts on that?
shareIt’s not “anti-atheist” bigotry, it’s just his personal opinion. He’s religious we get it. You never addressed my point that the far left death cult did the same thing after Gabby Gifford was shot, they tried to blame the whole thing on Sarah Palin, don’t you have a problem with that?
shareOpinions can be bigoted. Are you saying that all religious people must necessarily believe that about atheists?
>You never addressed my point that the far left death cult did the same thing after Gabby Gifford was shot, they tried to blame the whole thing on Sarah Palin, don’t you have a problem with that?
Sure. But by your logic, you'd have to agree with them. By the logic you use to implicate Biden and Kamala Harris, Palin was also implicated.
They can have whatever opinion they want, and you call me a fascist.
Sarah Palin said she was “targeting districts” she wanted to turn red. That’s not a call for violence, in fact the DemoKKKrats did the same thing to conservative districts. Diaper Joe and KKKamala however directly told their mob to kill MAGA Republicans. False equivalence on your part.
>They can have whatever opinion they want, and you call me a fascist.
I never said they couldn't. But it's still bigotry. You have no thoughts on someone implicitly calling you a psychopath?
>Sarah Palin said she was “targeting districts” she wanted to turn red. That’s not a call for violence, in fact the DemoKKKrats did the same thing to conservative districts.
"In March of 2010, Sarah Palin released a map of 20 Congressional districts she and John McCain had won in 2008 but whose Congressmen had voted in favor of the recently passed health care reform bill. The map, released amid a wave of small-scale violence against Democratic lawmakers, marked each targeted district with a set of crosshairs. Palin, who had promoted the map by tweeting "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD," drew controversy with the map, which some critics saw as a winking approval of violence."
A bit more context.
This doesn't make her implicated, but by your logic it does.
>Diaper Joe and KKKamala however directly told their mob to kill MAGA Republicans. False equivalence on your part.
No, they did not.
He didn’t say anything bigoted. There are good things in the Bible , you can accept them without accepting a man rose from the dead. If people had listened to those things like love your neighbor then there may very well be less violence in the world.
Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the shooting of Gabby Giffords, DemoKKKrats literally used that exact rhetoric about conservative districts. The DemoKKKrats were politicizing the shooting as they always do.
Yes they did
>He didn’t say anything bigoted. There are good things in the Bible , you can accept them without accepting a man rose from the dead. If people had listened to those things like love your neighbor then there may very well be less violence in the world.
I'm not talking about what Bill O'Reilly said about the bible. He made some ignorant comments about atheists.
>Sarah Palin had nothing to do with the shooting of Gabby Giffords, DemoKKKrats literally used that exact rhetoric about conservative districts. The DemoKKKrats were politicizing the shooting as they always do.
I did not say that she did. But you saying she didn't is inconsistent from your perspective.
>Yes they did
No, they did not.
He didn’t make any bigoted comments about atheists, he said that if people were following the Bible then maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence, there is stuff in the Bible that teaches peace and loving each other, you can agree with that without agreeing with the other absurd claims of th bible.
I have been very consistent. Neither Sarah Palin nor Donald Trump incited anything. Diaper Joe and KKKamala however have.
Yes they did
>He didn’t make any bigoted comments about atheists, he said that if people were following the Bible then maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence, there is stuff in the Bible that teaches peace and loving each other, you can agree with that without agreeing with the other absurd claims of th bible.
"Every single murderer over 40 years has been atheistic, agnostic, no religious basis at all"
The host, who has the highest–rated show on cable news, offered a “rise in nihilism” and a decline in the number of Americans who identify as Christian as the cocktail responsible for producing alleged killers such as Vester Lee Flanagan, who have “few restraints on their lives.” He also managed to get in a plug for his latest tome 'killing Reagan.'
>I have been very consistent. Neither Sarah Palin nor Donald Trump incited anything. Diaper Joe and KKKamala however have.
No, you have not been consistent at all. You never really commented either on Donald Trump retweeting that "Only good Democrat is a dead Democrat" video.
>Yes they did
Do you think just repeating your initial claims will somehow change my opinion?
I’m sure there is some study out there that says that. And as I said there are some good things in the Bible that if the killers had gone by then they wouldn’t have committed the crimes, that doesn’t mean I believe a man rose from the dead. Sorry kid but you’re really reaching here.
I have been very consistent , if Donald Trump did anything close to the level of evil of Diaper Joe and KKKamala I would be condemning him.
Yet that’s all you seem to be doing yourself.
>I’m sure there is some study out there that says that. And as I said there are some good things in the Bible that if the killers had gone by then they wouldn’t have committed the crimes, that doesn’t mean I believe a man rose from the dead. Sorry kid but you’re really reaching here.
If Bill is right, then why are crime rates in secular nations with much more non-believers so much lower than in the USA?
>I have been very consistent , if Donald Trump did anything close to the level of evil of Diaper Joe and KKKamala I would be condemning him.
Clearly not, since you aren't.
>Yet that’s all you seem to be doing yourself.
You keep repeating the claims, so I simply remind you that repeating them isn't going to convince me.
I didn’t say he was right, you lied again about what I said. I said he probably thinks that if people followed the Bible more then there would be less violence, I personally don’t agree with that because there is some pretty fucked up shit in the Bible but what he said wasn’t an attack on atheists.
Clearly since I would, you however are making excuses for the DemoKKKrat cult while at the same time twisting the facts to fit your narrative that Trump is some kind of a traitor.r
Again if I beat you over the head figuratively with logic maybe something will stick one day.
>I didn’t say he was right, you lied again about what I said. I said he probably thinks that if people followed the Bible more then there would be less violence, I personally don’t agree with that because there is some pretty fucked up shit in the Bible but what he said wasn’t an attack on atheists.
I disagree. It's rooted in his base ignorance and bigotry against atheism.
Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YxhGgjrS3k
"Catholic priest and Fox News contributor Father Jonathan Morris argued over the weekend that atheists were not suitable candidates for president because it was “hard to trust” someone who did not believe that God would punish them..."
>Clearly since I would, you however are making excuses for the DemoKKKrat cult while at the same time twisting the facts to fit your narrative that Trump is some kind of a traitor.r
I never called Trump a traitor.
>Again if I beat you over the head figuratively with logic maybe something will stick one day.
Go "no u" to every rejection by me won't work. Simple as that.
You are speculating and you are just connecting the dots in the direction you want them to go in, you aren’t being honest.
And I have heard the commentator that you are citing, he is a far left radical and can’t be trusted. And saying “hard to trust” isn’t bigotry. To me it would be “hard to trust” a DemoKKKrat because of their ideals. The guy is a priest of course he thinks that, just like Muslims believe gays should be stoned to death.
I am giving you some very good advice, the smart thing to do would be to take the gift I am offering you.
>You are speculating and you are just connecting the dots in the direction you want them to go in, you aren’t being honest.
I won't be lectured on speculation by someone who speculates aimlessly about multiple subjects.
>And I have heard the commentator that you are citing, he is a far left radical and can’t be trusted. And saying “hard to trust” isn’t bigotry. To me it would be “hard to trust” a DemoKKKrat because of their ideals.
He literally shows clips of the priest saying what he said. You don't have to take his commentary.
>The guy is a priest of course he thinks that, just like Muslims believe gays should be stoned to death.
And both people, in both instances, are hateful bigots.
>I am giving you some very good advice, the smart thing to do would be to take the gift I am offering you.
Fuck off
I don’t speculate, I call it like it is. Your entire premise is based on speculation.
The priest didn’t say anything bigoted, from his belief atheists can’t be trusted, it’s unfortunate he thinks that but he’s entitled to his opinion. He’s not the one calling for atheists to be murdered like the DemoKKKrats are calling for MAGA Republicans to be murdered.
Ummmm huge difference between the bigotry of Muslims and Christians. Christian’s can be rude, sanctimonious and downright annoying, they don’t however want to kill people. Radical Muslims do.
Naw I don’t think I will.
>I don’t speculate, I call it like it is. Your entire premise is based on speculation.
You claims that the North Dakota guy was bailed because he's Democrat were complete and utter speculation.
>The priest didn’t say anything bigoted, from his belief atheists can’t be trusted, it’s unfortunate he thinks that but he’s entitled to his opinion. He’s not the one calling for atheists to be murdered like the DemoKKKrats are calling for MAGA Republicans to be murdered.
That's bigoted. I don't give a fuck about his religious shield. He's a bigot.
>Ummmm huge difference between the bigotry of Muslims and Christians. Christian’s can be rude, sanctimonious and downright annoying, they don’t however want to kill people. Radical Muslims do.
I suppose you're not aware of the many Christian terrorist groups that operate in Africa.
>Naw I don’t think I will.
I meant in the sense that I am under no obligation to take any of your "advice".
Also, you never did answer my question. Do you think most of the UK is evil? Most of us support abortion rights.
Of course he was, you know damn well had he been a Republican he wouldn’t have been. There were people who didn’t even go into the capitol who were arrested and held without bail. We have a two tiered justice system in this country.
It’s ignorant at best, it isn’t bigoted, you need to grow up.
I noticed how you dodged the fact that Muslims execute people for being gay.
If you were wise you would take my advice.
And I dont think you’re evil, I think abortion is evil and I think you’re very ignorant.
>Of course he was, you know damn well had he been a Republican he wouldn’t have been. There were people who didn’t even go into the capitol who were arrested and held without bail. We have a two tiered justice system in this country.
Who was arrested without bail who didn't go into the capitol?
>It’s ignorant at best, it isn’t bigoted, you need to grow up.
It's both.
>I noticed how you dodged the fact that Muslims execute people for being gay.
When did I dodge it? How? I already said that was bigoted and hateful.
>If you were wise you would take my advice.
I don't take advice from fascists.
>And I dont think you’re evil, I think abortion is evil and I think you’re very ignorant.
You called me an evil scumbag for my support for abortion rights. Why doesn't that also go for people in my country?
If the arguments for abortion aren't primarily loaded with religious rhetoric, then why do most secular countries have no problem with it? Why is it only a major issue otherwise in other highly religious countries like Poland?
Right here, arrested and didn’t even enter the building: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/01/utica-man-arrested-in-us-capitol-riot-its-crazy-i-didnt-enter-anywhere.html
It’s ignorant, not bigoted.
Yet you seem more concerned about a priest making a dumb comment.
Not a fascist, the fact that you won’t take my advice seems to suggest you are a fascist.
It’s not about “women’s’ rights” you dishonest fucktard, it’s about protecting children. And it’s not a religious issue at all. It’s a moral and ethical issue. The fact that you seem hellbent on tying this to religion only shows how dishonest you are. You don’t need religion to arrive at the conclusion that child murder is wrong. The DemoKKKrats even voted against giving children who survived botched abortions protection, they were fine with just letting the baby die.
>Right here, arrested and didn’t even enter the building: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/01/utica-man-arrested-in-us-capitol-riot-its-crazy-i-didnt-enter-anywhere.html
This seems pretty minor. He got released. Curfew violations. Victim, but not exactly some smoking gun.
>It’s ignorant, not bigoted.
It's both.
>Not a fascist, the fact that you won’t take my advice seems to suggest you are a fascist.
Me not taking your advice means I am a fascist? How do you work that out?
>It’s not about “women’s’ rights” you dishonest fucktard, it’s about protecting children. And it’s not a religious issue at all. It’s a moral and ethical issue. The fact that you seem hellbent on tying this to religion only shows how dishonest you are. You don’t need religion to arrive at the conclusion that child murder is wrong. The DemoKKKrats even voted against giving children who survived botched abortions protection, they were fine with just letting the baby die.
You are not answering my question;
If the arguments for abortion aren't primarily loaded with religious rhetoric, then why do most secular countries have no problem with it? Why is it only a major issue otherwise in other highly religious countries like Poland?
It is a smoking gun and it proves that the justice system in this country favors the libtards.
Just ignorant.
Because the stuff I am telling you is very much anti-fascist.
Whether religious people use religion to argue against abortion is irrelevant, you don’t need religion to arrive at the conclusion that abortion is wrong. The opinions of other countries is also a non sequitur. I think they are wrong also.
>It is a smoking gun and it proves that the justice system in this country favors the libtards.
It's a minor incident. I imagine a lot of random people may have been caught up in DC that day.
>Just ignorant.
No reason to believe this. Anyone who argues for hateful stereotypes about atheists is an ignorant bigot.
>Because the stuff I am telling you is very much anti-fascist.
No, it is not remotely.
>Whether religious people use religion to argue against abortion is irrelevant, you don’t need religion to arrive at the conclusion that abortion is wrong. The opinions of other countries is also a non sequitur. I think they are wrong also.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/
The point is that without religion, abortion would be legal in the USA without any objection.
It is far more than a minor incident, it has been proven that liberal privilege is a very real thing in this country and our justice system favors libtards.
It’s not a hateful stereotype, he was giving his own opinion no matter how flawed or ignorant it is. It is nothing compared to the shit that DemoKKKrats think. They literally think if you support Trump you deserve to die.
It very much is.
And how do you know this? You are speculating and connecting dots that aren’t logical. I am an atheist and I despise abortion so that pretty much ruins your premise right there.
>It is far more than a minor incident, it has been proven that liberal privilege is a very real thing in this country and our justice system favors libtards.
No reason to believe this.
>It’s not a hateful stereotype, he was giving his own opinion no matter how flawed or ignorant it is. It is nothing compared to the shit that DemoKKKrats think. They literally think if you support Trump you deserve to die.
It's an ignorant bigoted stereotype.
I await evidence that Democrats think all Trump supporters deserve to die.
>It very much is.
How so?
>And how do you know this? You are speculating and connecting dots that aren’t logical. I am an atheist and I despise abortion so that pretty much ruins your premise right there.
You are one person. The majority of atheists support abortion by a landslide. Every single secular country primarily comprised of non-religious people, abortion is a settled issue.
Plenty of reasons to believe it, you just don’t want to.
It’s just his personal opinion despite being ignorant. You need to grow up and get some thicker skin.
Just listen to Diaper Joe’s speech, he told his mob to kill MAGA Republicans and no one in the cult called him out on it. If Trump told us to kill DemoKKKrats I would have said something.
Atheists overwhelmingly supporting abortion is also a non sequitur. As is secular countries supporting abortion. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. You are connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected.
>Plenty of reasons to believe it, you just don’t want to.
Reasons you've not given.
>It’s just his personal opinion despite being ignorant. You need to grow up and get some thicker skin.
I know it's his opinion. And his opinion is bigoted. I'm not offended, just noting that it is bigoted.
>Just listen to Diaper Joe’s speech, he told his mob to kill MAGA Republicans and no one in the cult called him out on it. If Trump told us to kill DemoKKKrats I would have said something.
No he didn't. False premise.
>Atheists overwhelmingly supporting abortion is also a non sequitur. As is secular countries supporting abortion. The two issues have nothing to do with each other. You are connecting dots that shouldn’t be connected.
Why in your mind do most secular countries (or countries with high levels of irreligiosity) have much less problem with abortion? Why does it seem to, primarily, be religious people who oppose it?
It is his opinion and it isn’t bigoted, he just happens to think you need God to be moral. That’s ignorant but it’s not bigoted, he’s not calling for violence against Atheists like Diaper Joe is calling for violence against MAGA Republicans.
Yes he did.
Don’t know and that’s not my burden of proof, it’s your burden of proof to establish a connection which you have failed miserably at.
>It is his opinion and it isn’t bigoted, he just happens to think you need God to be moral. That’s ignorant but it’s not bigoted, he’s not calling for violence against Atheists like Diaper Joe is calling for violence against MAGA Republicans.
Thinking people need a belief in a god to be moral is ignorant bigotry.
Joe Biden never called for violence. Only in your twisted, fascist misrepresentation of what he actually said did he do that.
>Don’t know and that’s not my burden of proof, it’s your burden of proof to establish a connection which you have failed miserably at.
So you don't think there's any reason for the hugely different levels of support for abortion between non-religious people and religious people? That it is entirely coincidental?
It’s just ignorant, that’s his legitimate yet flawed religious belief. Most religions think anyone not in their cult is immoral and going to some sort of hell
Yes he did, he told his mob to kill the SCOTUS and people who didn’t vote for him.
Couldn’t tell you, that’s your premise, kid, prove to me that the two are connected and that abortion is a religious issue, that means you have to establish a cause and effect relationship between the two. Good luck, kiddo.
>It’s just ignorant, that’s his legitimate yet flawed religious belief. Most religions think anyone not in their cult is immoral and going to some sort of hell
And they're bigoted fuckheads too.
>Yes he did, he told his mob to kill the SCOTUS and people who didn’t vote for him.
No he didn't. This is an outright lie.
>Couldn’t tell you, that’s your premise, kid, prove to me that the two are connected and that abortion is a religious issue, that means you have to establish a cause and effect relationship between the two. Good luck, kiddo.
I've given an argument: religion imprints the concept of a soul onto people that begins at conception. Atheists have no such concept.
It's blatant that opposition to abortion tracks along religious lines.
They can think what they want, it's not bigotry, bigotry would be harassing people in restaurants, protesting outside their homes, taking pictures of presidents decapitated heads, oh wait those are things the DemoKKKrats did. Tell me, who is he hurting by thinking a certain way?
It's not a lie at all, he ordered a hit on the SCOTUS, he was trying to overthrow the government.
And you haven't proven your argument, nor have you come anywhere close, all you are doing is speculating and connecting the dots in the direction you want them to go in whether it makes sense to or not.
>They can think what they want, it's not bigotry, bigotry would be harassing people in restaurants, protesting outside their homes, taking pictures of presidents decapitated heads, oh wait those are things the DemoKKKrats did. Tell me, who is he hurting by thinking a certain way?
Your definition of bigotry is loaded. It doesn't require actually harassing people.
>It's not a lie at all, he ordered a hit on the SCOTUS, he was trying to overthrow the government.
No he did not, you fascist liar.
>And you haven't proven your argument, nor have you come anywhere close, all you are doing is speculating and connecting the dots in the direction you want them to go in whether it makes sense to or not.
Can you please tell me what you think my argument here is please?
My definition of bigotry is a lot more reliable than yours, your definition of bigotry is just thinking a certain way which ironically is bigoted within itself.
Yes he did, you privileged, snowflake liar.
You said that abortion is a religious issue, you haven't proven it, you've just speculated and made illogical leaps in logic. Your premise is riddled with logical fallacies.
>My definition of bigotry is a lot more reliable than yours, your definition of bigotry is just thinking a certain way which ironically is bigoted within itself.
You just said bigotry must include harassment. Since I am not harassing anyone, by your own logic it is not bigotry.
Bigotry: obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
>Yes he did, you privileged, snowflake liar.
Again, do you really think just going "no u" is going to convince me otherwise? I've read the full context of his comments. Why do you think going "no u" will suddenly make me change my mind?
>You said that abortion is a religious issue, you haven't proven it, you've just speculated and made illogical leaps in logic. Your premise is riddled with logical fallacies.
No, I said that religious people are far more likely to oppose abortion.
No I said harrassment could be bigotry, I didn't say all bigotry was harassment, you lied again. Your definition of bigotry is just having a different opinion than yours.
I have given you non-negotiable evidence that he did. Diaper Joe is a murderer and a traitor and you are an accessory by supporting the son of a bitch.
And it's a moot point, religious people are more likely to be Republicans, Republicans believe in personal responsibility and not killing babies, there you go. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Typical democrat alphabet nut.
Everybody now days with no jobs to go to try and come up with money making scams.
shareMaybe it has to do with bullying trans people at every level from school yards to government and then pumping our society with guns and glorifying those guns.
shareSo that makes gunning down children ok? Really? None of those kids did any of those things to the TransShooter.
No, we're treating all shooters/murderers equal here. The rise of TransViolence is real now. Hate is hate.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
It certainly does not make it okay.
But those oppressing Trans people shouldn't act like they have any moral high ground, either.
Not oppressed. They are celebrated and we are now being forced to participate in their delusions....seriously?
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
How are Trans people oppressed? What are your thoughts on Trans people sending Matt Walsh death threats over his “What is a woman” documentary? I’m guessing you are fine with that.
shareWho the fuck is bullying trannies??? No one.
let's say it was true, bullying people that have access to guns is justification for this? Justification for stripping Americans of their rights? Or should we maybe look a little deeper into this?
Funniest thing I've heard in recent memory was that liberals were long term thinkers. What a fucking joke.
You pro gunners always embrace any excuse to justify keeping guns out there and now you are disagreeing with the idea of being bullied led to the shooting?
Why move the goal posts on this?
"Maybe it has to do with bullying trans people at every level from school yards to government..."
If that has to do with the motivation for this shooter, I would agree.
She did go to school there so perhaps she felt oppressed by the Catholic religion at self expression for wanting to be a boy or they frowned on her being a Tomboy?
"...then pumping our society with guns and glorifying those guns."
True.
That does not help and is the problem.
It is getting worse and will because with that easy access to guns the angry will reach for one instead of just writing an angry letter at whatever they are mad at.
More likely bullied for being autistic loner. Have yet to hear anything from her school mates.
shareHis*
Please use his preferred pronouns. Further misgendering and misuse of pronouns will result in more dead children.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Wow, for a moment there I thought *I* was the *only* one with a brain. Glad to see I was wrong.
Yes, it *does* have EVERYTHING to do with the stigmatisation and marginalisation of trans people, and the easy access to guns.
So you're saying it's okay six people, including three children, were murdered?
shareDay of Vengeance has not happened yet.
Get your dates right.
More sarcasm from you or are you just another right wing crackpot?
Are you serious with your shit or just trolling?
The Poster is all that's necessary. The message has been sent. Whether the event happened or not is irrelevant. Jane Fonda, on national TV no less, openly called to murder ProLifers/Christians...openly.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.
Jane Fonda did that?
Really?
Well, guess I will have to burn my Jane Fonda fitness book.
That'll teach her!
https://twitter.com/catturd2/status/1640526121992089600/photo/1
Don’t forget the immigrant vegan weirdo that shot up Youtube headquarters, they buried that so fast…
Dude, you don't want to get into a pissing contest about shootings caused by white supremacists vs. transpeople. You will lose.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-supremacists-behind-over-80-extremism-related-us-murders-2022-2023-02-23/
So if a black person kills a white person then I assume that person was a black supremacist?
I dont think you want to get into a pissing contest about murders. 90% of people murdered in Chicago are black. Why does no one report on black on black murders?
794 victims were killed in Chicago in 2021.
692 victims were killed in Chicago in 2022.
115 victims have been killed in Chicago in 2023.
https://graphics.suntimes.com/homicides/
>So if a black person kills a white person then I assume that person was a black supremacist?
No, I am not referring to race - but stated motives. There have been many shootings where the motive was specifically and directly linked to white supremacy ideals.
You said white supremists which are Caucasians, which is a race. If you are not referring to race then who are you referring to?
shareNo, white supremacism is an ideology. It is not the same as simply being white. I am white. I am not a white supremacist.
share…and hence; once again, you are contradicting yourself.
Since “white supremacism is an ideology” as you just stated, than in contrast to your previous comment:
shootings caused by white supremacists vs. transpeople
>Than you should realize that “anyone” can dress the part and claim the part of a so called “white supremacist”; therefore, your statement of shootings between the aforementioned is moot.
Right. But not every mass shooter does claim to be a white supremacist. Most shooters release manifestos or provide motives after arrest (if they survive). Or their internet history can reveal some hints to why they did it.
Are you claiming that every mass shooter who claims to be a white supremacist is in fact, lying?
There is no way to prove either way, but the media will latch on to this and will vilify white people. Thus perpetuating supposed racism in America. Its been well documented lately that blacks are attacking Asians but its not a hate crime.
shareNo, there are many instances where the motive for the mass shooting was outright stated as being white-supremacist, or incel related.
shareIf there is undeniable proof then please provide it. Do white supremists carry a card or some other form of identification? These people that say they are white supremists are confused and deluded.
sharehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Buffalo_shooting
shareWhy would a white supremist shoot white people?
Thirteen people—eleven of them Black and two White
Gendron is reported to have written a manifesto, describing himself as an ethno-nationalist and a supporter of white supremacy who is motivated to commit acts of political violence.
He doesn't explicitly say he is a white supremist.
In June 2021, Gendron had been investigated for threatening other students at his high school by the police in Broome County.[18][56][62] A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, and he responded, "I want to murder and commit suicide."[63] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[18][62][64]
Gendron told the police that he was joking; he would later write online about how it was a well-executed bluff.[61][65] He was not charged in connection with the incident; investigators said that he had not made a specific enough threat to warrant further action.[62][65] The New York State Police did not seek an order from a state court to remove guns from Gendron's possession.[65][66] The mental health evaluation was not an involuntary commitment, which would have prohibited him from buying guns under federal law.[65]
Another mentally ill person that was allowed to buy and own guns. Theres your problem. Kids today are so confused. I blame social media for the root cause.
>He doesn't explicitly say he is a white supremist.
What in the actual fuck do you think an ethno-nationalist, who is white supposed to be?
This is absurd.
And you know you can be mentally ill AND a white supremacist, right? They aren't mutually exclusive.
Why would a white supremist shoot white people?
What is ethno nationalist ideology?
Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethnonationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation and nationality are defined in terms of ethnicity, with emphasis on an ethnocentric (and in some cases an ethnocratic) approach to various political issues related to national affirmation of a particular ethnic group.
What is the meaning of ethno nationalist?
Introduction. The term ethnonationalism (or ethno-nationalism) elicits understandings and forms of nationalism that regard ethnicity and ethnic ties as core components of conceptions and experiences of the “nation”.
I dont see anything about being a white supremist in that text.
>Why would a white supremist shoot white people?
Perhaps they tried to stop him? Crossfire?
Are you genuinely denying his:
"Gendron is reported to have written a manifesto, describing himself as an ethno-nationalist and a supporter of white supremacy who is motivated to commit acts of political violence. He voiced support for the far-right "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory in the context of a "white genocide". The attack has been described as an act of domestic terrorism, and it is also being investigated as a hate crime which was motivated by racism."
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/PG-Manifesto.pdf
His actual manifesto
"A black man or woman living in their homelands? No.
A black man or woman choosing to invade our lands, live on our soil, live on government
support and attack and replace our people? Yes, I dislike them.
The only people I truly hate are the converts, those from our own people that turn their
backs on their heritage, turn their backs on their cultures, turn their back on their traditions and become blood traitors to their own race. They are not completely hopeless however. I believe some can come back, so it’s important to welcome them when they are awoken instead of shaming and ostracizing them."
"There is no non-white living on White lands that is innocent."
"Are you a facsist?
Yes, fascism is one of the only political ideologies that will unite Whites against the
replacers. Since that is what I seek, calling me a facsist would be accurate."
"Are you a white supremacist?
Yes, I would call myself a white supremacist, afterall, which race is responsible for the
world we live in today? I believe the White race is superior in the brain to all other races."
Another deluded and mentally ill person. If I write a manifesto that says I am the Queen of England, it doesn't make me the Queen of England. He was just another brainwashed incel influenced by social media.
shareI didn't say he wasn't potentially mentally ill.
I said he was a white supremacist.
Both things can be true. "White supremacist" isn't a title - it's simply things you believe. An ideology you can claim.
Yes, it was ideology. He was a confused 18 yr old kid that was brainwashed about what he read on the internet. He was just a wannabe.
shareRight.
But he still did what he did. How is he any more a "wannabe" than any other mass shooter who did what they did?
He isn't. All the recent mass shooters are mentally ill or have been diagnosed with an mental illness.
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness
Social media is also to blame.
Okay then. So why all the alarmism over this particular shooting?
shareWhat? Why this specific shooting, and not all the other shootings in the USA?
shareWhat? Why this specific shooting, and not all the other shootings in the USA?
shareDo you think there will somehow be a load of copycat incidents, or something? What is it you think will happen?
Did you think this when that white supremacist shot up the mall? Or when incels shoot up their old schools in USA?
Do you think there will somehow be a load of copycat incidents, or something? What is it you think will happen?
Did you think this when that white supremacist shot up the mall? Or when incels shoot up their old schools in USA?
So no answer then
shareSo no answer then
shareI note you're now behaving like a child rather than trying to actually substantiate your logic
shareIts hard to have a conversation when you just keep repeating what I said.
shareI want to understand why this particular event, this shooting makes you anxious about future copycat events but, apparently, not older events that involve white supremacists.
If the common denominator is mental illness, then surely the ideology whatever it is doesn't really matter at all.
Its mental illness.
New trend data from CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) reveal that teen girls and teens who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ+) are experiencing extremely high levels of mental distress, violence, and substance use. With the right programs and services in place, schools have the unique ability to help students thrive.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/healthy-youth/sadness-and-violence-among-teen-girls-and-LGBQ-youth-factsheet.html
Young people in the U.S. are collectively experiencing a level of distress that calls for action.
So why aren't levels of violence from LGBT people really high in europe?
shareGood question. Maybe kids over there aren't brainwashed and have a better education system.
People in Russia are allowed to have shotguns and hunting rifles but you don't see people out murdering others just because they feel slighted.
>Good question. Maybe kids over there aren't brainwashed and have a better education system.
Trans-acceptance is probably comparable here as it is in the USA. Why aren't we seeing trans acts of violence here?
>People in Russia are allowed to have shotguns and hunting rifles but you don't see people out murdering others just because they feel slighted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Russia
Russia actually does have shootings. You would have to double them to scale it to USA to get a feel for it because USA has over double Russias population.
We are, have you not seen the news lately?
shareOne incident by one person is not evidence of a trend.
I am asking you why we aren't seeing issues of transviolence in Europe.
Don't even bother going down that rabbit-hole.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other over which demographic has the most mentally ill individuals (Guess what? They ALL do!), we should focus wholly on removing guns from ALL their hands.
But they haven't committed any crimes yet. How about the removal of gun-free zones? Ever notice Mass Shootings rarely happen when they can't get shot back at?
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Leftists always lie.