Trump At The March For Life

Author: ethang5

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Trump will be the only American president to ever speak at the March for life.

He has upheld religious liberty, has put common sense judges on the bench, is getting rid of the silly business killing  environmental extremism, and always transparently says exactly what's on his mind.

I saw a sign at last years march.
Choose Life: Your Mother Did.

I'm not ashamed of Trump at all.
#2
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Choose Life: Your Mother Did.

Not my fault, the blame for that poor decision falls squarely on her shoulders. Yet who is made to live with the consequences? Myself and everyone around me.
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
doing pretty good, foreign policy needs to be cleaned up a little but other than that, its been good
Topic's author
#4
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Choose Life: Your Mother Did.

Not my fault,...
It's a fault?

..the blame for that poor decision falls squarely on her shoulders.
Well, you would know. But if that decision is poor because of what you did after your birth, then the decision is bad not for anything your mom did.

Yet who is made to live with the consequences? Myself and everyone around me.
You are an atheist right? You can always go back to the nothingness you believe you come from.

Your Dad gets a pass huh?
#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Just kill yourself

Eh, bit busy for the next few months to be planning suicides. I'll check to see if I have some room in my schedule for June or July.
Topic's author
#6
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lying by making up fake comments and putting them in quotes as if I made them is dishonesty, not humor.

But I do notice you are better at dishonesty than at humor.

...bit busy for the next few months to be planning suicides.
Lol. I guess living with the consequences is not as bad as you first implied eh?

Not to worry. I'm sure your mom will shoulder the blame for that "poor decision" till you tire again of "living" with those consequences.
#7
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
Not to worry. I'm sure your mom will shoulder the blame for that "poor decision" till you tire again of "living" with those consequences.

I don't understand why you would keep "tagging" me in your "posts" if all you are going to do is say I am a "liar".
Topic's author
#8
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?

I don't understand why you would keep "tagging" me in your "posts" if all you are going to do is say I am a "liar".
Remember you tagged me first and kept tagging me. Are you tired now?

I said other stuff too, but I can appreciate how that part would hard for you to assimilate.
#9
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I am not "implying" anything in my "quotes". Are you "implying" that I am?
Topic's author
#10
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not "implying" anything in my "quotes".
The question was not, "Are you implying anything in your quote?" Though you would like it to be.

The question was,
Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?

Dodge much?

Are you "implying" that I am?
No. I am asserting you are lying in your quote. Notice the word lying above is not in quotes.
#11
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
My "question" to you is "why" you started the trend of putting "quote marks" around random "words" in the first place. It is quite "confusing".
Topic's author
#12
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
An uncommon response to confusion is lying. Did your lie "quoting" me saying, "just kill yourself" ease your confusion?

I did not put quote mark around random words. When I was using the words you used, I put quote marks on them. Sorry you found honesty "confusing".
#13
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
I did not put quote mark around random words. When I was using the words you used, I put quote marks on them.

So you are "asserting" that the reason you put quote marks around the word "living" in post 6 is because I used the word "live" in a previous post.

Is that the truth or a lie?
Topic's author
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Sorry Sir. You have run out of answer credits.

Please answer some questions if you wish to continue having your own questions answered.

Suggested questions to answer that you have overlooked:

1. Are you implying quoting me as saying "Just kill yourself" is not a lie?

2. Did your lie "quoting" me saying, "just kill yourself" ease your confusion?

Answering either or both will extend your answer credits. Otherwise, please have a nice day Sir.
Topic's author
#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Notice that the march had no violence. No car burnings, no building windows smashed. No vigilante beatings of people with opposing beliefs.

I wonder if that has anything to do with the darth of progressive liberals who are pro-life? Nah, it's just coincidence.

Right?
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Religious liberty is as religious liberty does, relative to the liberty of who is able to feel religiously liberated or not.

Similarly, common sense Judges are only common sensical when newly acquired data corresponds positively with their own particular store of what they have accepted to be common sense data.

And environmental concerns either are or are not common sense, depending upon what might or might not be assumed to be common sense.

Therefore, just because Donny speaks his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store and just because you have been similarly conditioned and therefore tend to agree with him, does not necessarily make either of you correct or righteous.
#17
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Be careful when modifying the content of any quotation.

If changing anything, but [brackets] around it. Such as if you believe "You can always go back to the nothingness you believe you come from," can be paraphrased "Just kill yourself," make it "[Just kill yourself.]" This makes the changes transparent, minimizing any accusations of lies.

I used this technique very well for comedic effect when in a debate about pie:
"[pie] isn't as popular as cake"
Yet for reasons explored last round (flour), a ban on pies would be even more detrimental to cake availability than pie itself. It takes a relatively small amount of flour to make a pie, but a large amount to make a cake.

Also (incoming fallacy) the same line of reasoning, was used by Hitler. One group at a time they removed the less popular ones, trying to leave only the most popular one. It is like that quote from death camp survivor Martin Niemöller
  • "First they came for the [Pie], and I did not speak out—
    Because I [did] not [like pie].
    Then they came for the [Pizza], and I did not speak out—
    Because I [did] not [like pizza-pie either].Then they came for the [Black Forest cake], and I did not speak out—
    Because I [did] not [like the pie-like fruit filling between layers].Then they came for [my chocolate birthday cake with sprinkles]—and there was no one left to speak for me."
How long until the the only tolerated foodstuff is flourless Angel Food cake?
#18
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I'm pro life, but what does the pro life crowd think of mandatory vasectomies?  Vastecomonies can be reversed.  That would eliminate abortions.  It's easier to tell a guy to get a vasectomy than to tell a woman to get her tubes tied or to use a pill that sometimes fails and that does much worse for a woman than what a vasectomy would do to a guy.  Thoughts?
Topic's author
#19
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore, just because Donny speaks his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store and just because you have been similarly conditioned and therefore tend to agree with him, does not necessarily make either of you correct or righteous.
All true. Except that I did not say or imply that Trump was correct or righteous because he spoke his mind.

The pro-life crowd marches and there is no violence, the pro-abortion crowd marches and there is senseless violence. Yet the left says they are tolerant. When Trump says the are not. Is he just speaking his mind relative to his conditioning and consequent data store, or is he right in reality?

Everyone speaks relative to their conditioning and consequent data store, pointing that out a frivolous. The question is, whose position better conforms to reality?

It never is the progressive liberal.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@ethang5

One must ask.

Irrespective of which crowd marches. Who instigates the violence?

And Trump drone strikes with impunity from the comfort of the White House, killing 10 people.

Why is Trumpian violence not violence?

Are you not simply selectively moral relative to your conditioned sensibilities?
Topic's author
#21
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you not simply selectively moral relative to your conditioned sensibilities?
That house that antifa burned down killed no one. But Sulimani did kill people. See, the aggressor is not morally equal to the innocent in my moral code. I am morally selective yes, but relative to reality

I am selectively morally outraged relative to the moral guilt or innocence of the person in question.

I don't buy the crazy liberal idea of moral equivalence.

Irrespective of which crowd marches. Who instigates the violence?
There is no violence when pro-life marches.
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
There is no violence when pro-lifers march.
A politicians answer.


But who instigates the violence when pro-abortionists march?

If pro-abortionists were left alone to march peacefully, isn't it extremely unlikely that they would want to attack themselves?

Therefore isn't it also fair to say that when pro-lifers march, that they are left alone and allowed to protest peacefully?

Which would logically imply that pro-lifers are the ones most likely to be responsible for the violence at pro-abortionist marches.

Topic's author
#23
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
A politicians answer.
It is the truth no matter what spin you put on it.

But who instigates the violence when pro-abortionists march?
Pro-abortionists. a.k.a. antifa.

If pro-abortionists were left alone to march peacefully, isn't it extremely unlikely that they would want to attack themselves?
Yes. Which is why they attack cars and buildings when there are no people with opposing beliefs for them to attack.

Therefore isn't it also fair to say that when pro-lifers march, that they are left alone and allowed to protest peacefully?
History and facts contradict you. Marches by the left invariably turn violent, they either attack the police, others they view as having non-liberal points of view, or they smash cars and set buildings on fire.

Which would logically imply that pro-lifers are the ones most likely to be responsible for the violence at pro-abortionist marches.
There was no logic in what you said. It was pseudo-logic contortion not reflected in reality.

Only liberals attack speakers at  universities, only liberals attack govt. officials eating at restaurants. We watched video after video of the "tolerant" left assaulting and abusing people and police officers alike.

And this is why Trump will win again and the right is ascending in countries all over the world. Liberals just don't get it. Reality makes no dent in the liberal fantasy world. They deny the truth all around them till Orange Man is in the White House, then stumble around babbling about Collusion, quid-pro-quo, and impeachment like deranged morons.

These days, the violent demonstrations are all on TV, and its almost always progressive liberals throwing the stones and assaulting people.
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
A. I'm not asking who is throwing the stones. I'm asking who is instigating the violence. How better to discredit your opponent.

B. The manipulated media will broadcast what it wants to broadcast Big Bro.

C. And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer.
Topic's author
#25
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not asking who is throwing the stones. I'm asking who is instigating the violence.
The ones throwing the stones. You know, the tolerant, inclusive, antifa.

The manipulated media will...
Aha! You know the media is manipulated?

...broadcast what it wants to broadcast Big Bro.
Sure, but faking buildings burning in Berkeley is kinda hard to fake.

And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer.
Certainly not antisemitism at least.

(Gentle Reader, You may have wondered, "huh? When did  Zionists come in?" They see Jews around every corner these jackboots.For them, Zionists are behind every evil.)

#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
As you did not respond to my question of instigation I will assume that you got my point.

Of course the media is biased. Which is directly relative to the previous point. Power corrupts etc...….

Intolerance is not just antisemitism. Like racism is not just black and white.

And I used the word Zionist appropriately and in accordance with it's proper definition.
Topic's author
#27
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
As you did not respond to my question of instigation...
I did.

I will assume that you got my point.
That evil Jews are behind everything evil?

And I used the word Zionist appropriately and in accordance with it's proper definition.
But why would the word come up at all? Anti-semite much?
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
The recent Trump Netanyahu accord was overtly and undeniably Zionist. Correct terminology and far from Anti-Semitic.
In fact anti-Semitic  is a typical slur that would be used to both instigate violence and also to discredit an opponent.

The term evil Jews was never mentioned and certainly not in relation to the issue that was being discussed. Which was who instigates violence rather than who applies violence.

And so I continue to assume that you got my point and will therefore ignore your deception.
Topic's author
#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
The recent Trump Netanyahu accord was overtly and undeniably Zionist. 
The accord had nothing to do with our subject. You injected Zionism into a conversation about the first American President attending a pro-life march.

Now you've introduced Netanyahu. Why?

Correct terminology and far from Anti-Semitic. 
The terminology is fine, your inappropriate introduction of it out of the blue into a convo about Trump attending a pro-life march  smacks of anti-semitism.

In fact anti-Semitic  is a typical slur that would be used to both instigate violence and also to discredit an opponent.
You mean "can be used". Anti-semites exist. And you aren't my opponent.

The term evil Jews was never mentioned and certainly not in relation to the issue that was being discussed. 
You blurted, "And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer."

What did Zionists have to do with the topic? You equated them with Trump, whom you obviously dislike, and called them arrogant. Zionists are Jews. Be an anti-semite if you want, but the seedy denial is what I don't like.


And so I continue to assume that you got my point and will therefore ignore your deception.
Your point was that you dislike Trump and Zionists (?) and think they are arrogant. The point I got that you obviously did not intend to send was that by injecting Zionism out of the blue into an innocuous convo about the first president to  attend a pro-life march, you are an anti-semite.

I know you don't think you are, but your slip here is similar to Biden's slip of "there are smart kids and there are black kids". It tells us what you really think.

So you can ignore anything you want, your posts and it's inexplicable Zionism dig will remain up. Readers will decide on whether there was any deception.
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Trump was already a part of the thread and Trump and Netanyahu evolved quite appropriately from the same.

Netanyahu is undeniably a Zionist and his recent collusion with Trump therefore inevitably renders Trump as the same.

The overt arrogance displayed during their recently televised Trump Netanyahu meeting was obvious, unless you watched with your eyes closed.

And simply because I state the obvious does not make me an anti-Semite.

And furthermore if you check through many of my other posts you will find that my views are very varied. I am often just as scathing of new liberalism as I am of overly arrogant conservatism. I have also occasionally extolled some of Trumps better qualities and have many times spoken out against anti-Semitism.

In short; I say what I think is relevant and have very few steadfastly pre-conditioned ideas.

Q. And so why is calling a Zionist a Zionist anti-Semitic? 

A. It's not of course, but nonetheless can easily be cynically manipulated to discredit an opponent and/or stir up trouble. Which is directly relative to the thread.