ForumGarden

It really does make one wonder why??

I was at the University's local event of this same march and it received very little news coverage while the attendance was in the tens of thousands. I was impressed at the professionalism and politeness they showed. I figured they were all hateful Bible-thumpers trying to tell people how to live. I did hear some pretty mean comments from some folks that showed up to harass them, but they seemed to have gotten bored and left early since they didn't get much response from their baiting.

I was in DC during one of the the big tea party rally (9-12-09) and the media barely covered it. This is a pretty damn accurate representation. 9/12 Taxpayer Tea Party March on Washington, DC - YouTube

There were a million on hand. I kept looking for all the hate speech and bigoted, racist, sexist overtones, but only found people that looked just like my neighbors who were tired of seeing the expansion of the federal government. I failed to see the stereotype I was given by the media.

I guess without the "validated" assumptions, it is not really news. I am not sure what to believe anymore.

Maybe Katie Couric will interview someone who's life is not a lie?

For all the whine I read in the post, when I googled the event itself , I see I can choose from over 1200 related stories...

136 million hits on the 2009 event

https://www.google.com/search?client=ub ... 8&oe=utf-8

Salon.com covered the march for life 2013 event and gave it a fair writeup. :wah:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators marched through Washington to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to protest a landmark court decision that legalized abortion.

The annual event took on added significance for many in the crowd since it coincided with the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that created a constitutional right to abortion in some circumstances. The demonstrators, carrying signs with messages such as “Defend Life and “Defund Planned Parenthood, shouted chants including “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Roe v. Wade has got to go.

They packed sections of the National Mall and surrounding streets for the March of Life.

“I just felt this 40th year marked a huge anniversary for the law, said one demonstrator, Pam Tino, 52, of Easton, Mass, who also participated several years ago. “Forty is a very important year in the Bible as well, in terms of years in the desert. And I just felt like maybe this year (there) was going to be something miraculous that might happen. We might see something going forward with the cause.

With the re-election of President Barack Obama, she added, “we just have our walking papers. Now we just feel like we have to keep the battle up.




Abortion opponents march in Washington - Salon.com

It is becoming very disturbing in that the media is getting half the story out. Hey, I'm glad they are on the liberal side, but I can;t help but feel they are the mouth of the government.

I love freedom, as well do, but so many seem to fall in line with the rhetoric without questioning. This is a little obvious without looking very far.

I thought we had made solid ground in the 90's, but now it seems like al rules can be broken and all morals crushed in the name of the end-state.

Shame. We used to fight for people. Now we fight people for the sake of an ideology.

So.......what are you saying?

Assault weapons don't make a democracy safe ?

Interesting choice of words in Ahso's Salon article:

Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that created a constitutional right to abortion in some circumstances.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bruv;1417969 wrote: So.......what are you saying?

Assault weapons don't make a democracy safe ?That's the troll-like remark of a dick, Bruv.

halfway;1417968 wrote: It is becoming very disturbing in that the media is getting half the story out. Hey, I'm glad they are on the liberal side, but I can;t help but feel they are the mouth of the government.

I love freedom, as well do, but so many seem to fall in line with the rhetoric without questioning. This is a little obvious without looking very far.

I thought we had made solid ground in the 90's, but now it seems like al rules can be broken and all morals crushed in the name of the end-state.

Shame. We used to fight for people. Now we fight people for the sake of an ideology.


Your own freedom perhaps but not the rights of women to make their own choices, including the right to low priced health care.

The demonstrators, carrying signs with messages such as “Defend Life and “Defund Planned Parenthood"...

Accountable;1417971 wrote: Interesting choice of words in Ahso's Salon article:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's the troll-like remark of a dick, Bruv.


Bruv is Not a dick.

AnneBoleyn;1417986 wrote: Bruv is Not a dick.Normally I'd agree.

So.......what are you saying?

Assault weapons don't make a democracy safe ?


Accountable;1417971 wrote:

That's the troll-like remark of a dick, Bruv.


AnneBoleyn;1417986 wrote: Bruv is Not a dick.
Thanks Anne......I can be at times.....ask me missus

Accountable;1417989 wrote: Normally I'd agree.
Oh Thanks

I am starting another thread with the idea behind the thoughts that went into that reply

halfway;1417968 wrote: It is becoming very disturbing in that the media is getting half the story out. Hey, I'm glad they are on the liberal side, but I can;t help but feel they are the mouth of the government.

I love freedom, as well do, but so many seem to fall in line with the rhetoric without questioning. This is a little obvious without looking very far.

I thought we had made solid ground in the 90's, but now it seems like al rules can be broken and all morals crushed in the name of the end-state.

Shame. We used to fight for people. Now we fight people for the sake of an ideology.


You've got me confused here. Do you mean the anti-abortionists fall in line with the rhetoric without questioning or those that are pro life? Seems to me a lot of the religious are just blindly doing as they are told. But what gives them the right to deny family planning to women who are not catholic and don't follow the dictates of the pope on the matter? Not everybody having an abortion is doing so as a means of contraception in many cases it is for medical reasons and the choice should not be up to the state to make - which if it ensures a free choice is doing exactly what it is supposed to - protecting citizens from those who would impose their will on others. It is not up to the state imo to tell women they cannot have an abortion or access to family planning.

gmc;1418010 wrote: You've got me confused here. Do you mean the anti-abortionists fall in line with the rhetoric without questioning or those that are pro life? Seems to me a lot of the religious are just blindly doing as they are told. But what gives them the right to deny family planning to women who are not catholic and don't follow the dictates of the pope on the matter? Not everybody having an abortion is doing so as a means of contraception in many cases it is for medical reasons and the choice should not be up to the state to make - which if it ensures a free choice is doing exactly what it is supposed to - protecting citizens from those who would impose their will on others. It is not up to the state imo to tell women they cannot have an abortion or access to family planning.


Are you assuming "all" those folks that are pro life are catholic or even christian? Many I talked with felt it was morally wrong to kill an innocent child because of a bad decision or lack of responsibility. Almost everyone of them felt there should be exclusion for medical issues (we have laws allowing this), incest and rape (most rapes get "Plan B" as it is). The issue was the millions that are simply a "quick solution" to a lack of responsibility. The overwhelming majority are for convenience....a sad fact.

The most heart-breaking aspect was the extensive counseling and extreme guilt by those young mothers that have chosen abortion. The more I looked into the tragedy in their lives, I had to ask myself "what kind of society promotes this?" Many of these women are forever scarred and require extensive counseling and even a lifetime of anti-depressants to cope. I have a hard time understanding how this "choice" has helped their lives.

Slavery and the oppression of women's roles (and lack of rights) in the 1700s-1800s are now "tragic" in the eyes of modern Americans. That culture was however acceptable to the majority in the world at that time.

I wonder if we will look back upon these last forty years in the future and wonder why we were such barbarians for the sake of "convenience?" Will we see how it was tragic despite a culture that thought it was acceptable? Many thought slavery was acceptable, and it took a minority to rise up and really "think" and "understand" that it was wrong.

Just some "enlightened thoughts" against the mainstream sheep-thinking process. :-3

halfway;1418043 wrote: Are you assuming "all" those folks that are pro life are catholic or even christian? Many I talked with felt it was morally wrong to kill an innocent child because of a bad decision or lack of responsibility..It is indeed morally wrong to kill any person, innocent or not - child or not. However, it is not necessarily morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy. Morality is subjective. You should cease trying to shove yours down the throats of everyone else. halfway;1418043 wrote: Almost everyone of them felt there should be exclusion for medical issues (we have laws allowing this), incest and rape (most rapes get "Plan B" as it is). The issue was the millions that are simply a "quick solution" to a lack of responsibility. The overwhelming majority are for convenience....a sad fact.It's not a fact. You should also stop trying to control females and the decisions they make on an individual basis.

cho

halfway;1418043 wrote: The most heart-breaking aspect was the extensive counseling and extreme guilt by those young mothers that have chosen abortion.Really? I'd ask you if you thought the most heartbreaking aspect was this or, as you put it, the "killing of innocent children"? halfway;1418043 wrote: The more I looked into the tragedy in their lives, I had to ask myself "what kind of society promotes this?" A free society promotes free choice to do with one's body as one wishes.

halfway;1418043 wrote: Many of these women are forever scarred and require extensive counseling and even a lifetime of anti-depressants to cope.So be it! Life is filled with difficult choices and consequences. We all do the best we can.halfway;1418043 wrote: I have a hard time understanding how this "choice" has helped their lives.We'll just add this confusion to the list then.

halfway;1418043 wrote: Slavery and the oppression of women's roles (and lack of rights) in the 1700s-1800s are now "tragic" in the eyes of modern Americans. That culture was however acceptable to the majority in the world at that time.I wonder if we will look back upon these last forty years in the future and wonder why we were such barbarians for the sake of "convenience?" Will we see how it was tragic despite a culture that thought it was acceptable?

Again, it's not convience as you so flippantly put it. You and I won't see sh!t in the future, but, you might be right here. However, as of today, this is what it is.

It is interesting in that those who express (or merely offer) differing views are attacked when the core issue is quickly brushed aside.

Compare the values encouraged in a child to those we tend to rationalize in real life.

Lying is just fine as long as....?

Killing is just fine as long as....

xxxxx is just fine as long as.....

Keep an open mind and respect what others have to say.....

Seek the truth.....

Very tough to encourage values to youngsters these days.

I would have to ask again, "Slavery and the oppression of women's roles (and lack of rights) in the 1700s-1800s are now "tragic" in the eyes of modern Americans. That culture was however acceptable to the majority in the world at that time.

I wonder if we will look back upon these last forty years in the future and wonder why we were such barbarians for the sake of "convenience?" Will we see how it was tragic despite a culture that thought it was acceptable? Many thought slavery was acceptable, and it took a minority to rise up and really "think" and "understand" that it was wrong."

Upon which moral code do we rest?

halfway;1418043 wrote: kill an innocent child because of a bad decision or lack of responsibility.


1. the word "kill" is inflamatory rhetoric.

2. The word "child" does not scientifically apply to a zygote anymore than "living creature" applies to my toenails.

there should be exclusion for medical issues incest and rape


Agreed, but if you allow it, why not allow it for everyone?

The issue was the millions that are simply a "quick solution" to a lack of responsibility. The overwhelming majority are for convenience....a sad fact.


If it is true that "millions" are a quick solution, you would have literally millions of unwanted, unneeded, or unloved babies around by your solution which is no abortion at all. Besides the fact that all that would do is regress the desperate women to back rooms and coat hangers, how do you propose to sustain the Earth when the current population problem is so bad that we will have to produce as much food in the next fifty years as we have in the last five hundred to feed them all?

Seems to me that if you really cared about life and the quality of it, you be pro-abortion, pro-birth control and even pro-ZPG. Abortion is a sterile ideal to you, you haven't thought through the long term logical consequences of your position. Overpopulation, war, poverty, and starvation is what you propose.

The most heart-breaking aspect was the extensive counseling and extreme guilt by those young mothers that have chosen abortion. The more I looked into the tragedy in their lives, I had to ask myself "what kind of society promotes this?" Many of these women are forever scarred and require extensive counseling and even a lifetime of anti-depressants to cope. I have a hard time understanding how this "choice" has helped their lives.


Just like homosexuals, it's not their choice that causes the angst, it's society's, YOUR, reaction and judgement of them that causes the pain.

Slavery and the oppression of women's roles (and lack of rights) in the 1700s-1800s are now "tragic" in the eyes of modern Americans. That culture was however acceptable to the majority in the world at that time.


Good point, in other words we've progressed from medieval thinking of the past towards more responsible positions. Abortion was illegal and many women died from it due to victorian attitudes like yours. Thanks goodness we are enlightened now.

I wonder if we will look back upon these last forty years in the future and wonder why we were such barbarians for the sake of "convenience?"


Probably, I think we'll see that trying to force our religious ideals on others and ignorning science was pretty barbaric. I assume abortion will be widespread and not even a big deal in the future. As a matter of fact, thanks to the overpopulation problem, it'll probably either be mandated for people with poor DNA, or we will develop a near perfect form of birth control for both men and women. (You'll probably be against that as well, though. You seem to hate progress.)



Just some "enlightened thoughts" against the mainstream sheep-thinking process. :-3


You do know that you didn't think up that "sheep" line right? That it is a propaganda term given to you by the far right brain washing branch of the NEOCON party? Try something original instead of spouting platitudes, glittering generalities, and rightist dogma like a puppet. Have some substance.

Saint_;1418105 wrote: 1. the word "kill" is inflamatory rhetoric.

2. The word "child" does not scientifically apply to a zygote anymore than "living creature" applies to my toenails.



Agreed, but if you allow it, why not allow it for everyone?



If it is true that "millions" are a quick solution, you would have literally millions of unwanted, unneeded, or unloved babies around by your solution which is no abortion at all. Besides the fact that all that would do is regress the desperate women to back rooms and coat hangers, how do you propose to sustain the Earth when the current population problem is so bad that we will have to produce as much food in the next fifty years as we have in the last five hundred to feed them all?

Seems to me that if you really cared about life and the quality of it, you be pro-abortion, pro-birth control and even pro-ZPG. Abortion is a sterile ideal to you, you haven't thought through the long term logical consequences of your position. Overpopulation, war, poverty, and starvation is what you propose.



Just like homosexuals, it's not their choice that causes the angst, it's society's, YOUR, reaction and judgement of them that causes the pain.



Good point, in other words we've progressed from medieval thinking of the past towards more responsible positions. Abortion was illegal and many women died from it due to victorian attitudes like yours. Thanks goodness we are enlightened now.



Probably, I think we'll see that trying to force our religious ideals on others and ignorning science was pretty barbaric. I assume abortion will be widespread and not even a big deal in the future. As a matter of fact, thanks to the overpopulation problem, it'll probably either be mandated for people with poor DNA, or we will develop a near perfect form of birth control for both men and women. (You'll probably be against that as well, though. You seem to hate progress.)





You do know that you didn't think up that "sheep" line right? That it is a propaganda term given to you by the far right brain washing branch of the NEOCON party? Try something original instead of spouting platitudes, glittering generalities, and rightist dogma like a puppet. Have some substance.


I'm a lifelong liberal challenging current thought.

You are obviously the product of lifelong learning and experience and with that vast experience has come a great deal of wisdom. You are simply amazing. You should dump 3 of the 4 jobs you have and concentrate solely on philosophy.

Enjoy your day.

halfway;1418043 wrote: Are you assuming "all" those folks that are pro life are catholic or even christian? Many I talked with felt it was morally wrong to kill an innocent child because of a bad decision or lack of responsibility. Almost everyone of them felt there should be exclusion for medical issues (we have laws allowing this), incest and rape (most rapes get "Plan B" as it is). The issue was the millions that are simply a "quick solution" to a lack of responsibility. The overwhelming majority are for convenience....a sad fact.

The most heart-breaking aspect was the extensive counseling and extreme guilt by those young mothers that have chosen abortion. The more I looked into the tragedy in their lives, I had to ask myself "what kind of society promotes this?" Many of these women are forever scarred and require extensive counseling and even a lifetime of anti-depressants to cope. I have a hard time understanding how this "choice" has helped their lives.

Slavery and the oppression of women's roles (and lack of rights) in the 1700s-1800s are now "tragic" in the eyes of modern Americans. That culture was however acceptable to the majority in the world at that time.

I wonder if we will look back upon these last forty years in the future and wonder why we were such barbarians for the sake of "convenience?" Will we see how it was tragic despite a culture that thought it was acceptable? Many thought slavery was acceptable, and it took a minority to rise up and really "think" and "understand" that it was wrong.

Just some "enlightened thoughts" against the mainstream sheep-thinking process. :-3


My apologies, I had been posting in a thread about a catholic hospital that did just that. Far from it, I have the impression that the real driving force in the anti-abortion movement comes from the fundamentalist/evangelical Christians - heretics in the eyes of the catholic church. At least they have progressed and no longer try and kill each other for believing in the wrong god.

At the end of the day both want to impose their beliefs on everybody regardless of their faith or lack of it the choice should be the woman's. What makes it worse IMO is the hypocrisy of not allowing free access to contraceptives and proper sex education and then condemning girls out of hand when they get pregnant.

The most heart-breaking aspect was the extensive counselling and extreme guilt by those young mothers that have chosen abortion. The more I looked into the tragedy in their lives, I had to ask myself "what kind of society promotes this?" Many of these women are forever scarred and require extensive counselling and even a lifetime of anti-depressants to cope. I have a hard time understanding how this "choice" has helped their lives.


What kind of society doesn't want to give women the choice as to when and if they become pregnant and then having done that make them pariahs for being single mothers. The majority of abortions are not done simply for convenience however much you want to believe that the facts just don't back it up. To believe that most women having an abortion do so without a great deal of consideration shows a considerable contempt for women. Maybe it's the belief that pregnancy somehow makes you unstable and incapable of rational thought. At least nowadays we no longer treat single mothers with as much contempt and being a bastard is not the bad thing it used to be but that is no thanks to the Christian right.

I'm a lifelong liberal challenging current thought.


You must be the only one in america - I thought they you had all gone in to hiding in case you got shot as unpatriotic.

halfway;1418118 wrote: I'm a lifelong liberal challenging current thought.

You are obviously the product of lifelong learning and experience and with that vast experience has come a great deal of wisdom. You are simply amazing. You should dump 3 of the 4 jobs you have and concentrate solely on philosophy.

Enjoy your day.


I looked up some words to best describe you halfway......here are the definitions

Monotonous talk filled with platitudes.

Hypocritically pious language

To speak tediously or sententiously; moralize.

The word is cant, it wasn't the first word I though of though.

The more I read, the more trollish he comes across. He's like a Rush Limbaugh fan come to spam up the forum with his favorite buzz words. I'm waiting for him to spout 'feminazi' when he sees a chance.

Bruv;1418125 wrote: I looked up some words to best describe you halfway......here are the definitions



Monotonous talk filled with platitudes.

Hypocritically pious language

To speak tediously or sententiously; moralize.



The word is cant, it wasn't the first word I though of though.




I think you had a good guess last week. I'd had it a short time before, however... so if there is a prize to be had at the end of this, you just stand in line.:sneaky:

Well, at least my thoughts are being met with politeness and open-mindedness.

Of course I do shoot back when shot at first, but who doesn't?

Did I miss a FAQ on what to believe, but to believe in, and what to think? These responses all sound like they are coming from one person???

BTW: I listened to Limbaugh for 3 weeks as part of a study. That probably dooms me to hell?

Bruv;1418125 wrote: I looked up some words to best describe you halfway......here are the definitions

The word is cant, it wasn't the first word I though of though.


What is a "cant" and why are you calling me names? I never called you names. I presented some thoughts for discussion.

If the thoughts are not directly in line with your own you immediately resort to name calling? Am I mistaken? Maybe "cant" means something positive and you are simply giving me accolades?

If so, my apologies and thank you!

halfway;1418149 wrote: What is a "cant" and why are you calling me names? I never called you names. I presented some thoughts for discussion.

If the thoughts are not directly in line with your own you immediately resort to name calling? Am I mistaken? Maybe "cant" means something positive and you are simply giving me accolades?

If so, my apologies and thank you!


Don't you have access to a dictionary?



cant

1 [kant]

noun

1.

insincere, especially conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety.

2.

the private language of the underworld.

3.

the phraseology peculiar to a particular class, party, profession, etc.: the cant of the fashion industry.

4.

whining or singsong speech, especially of beggars.

verb (used without object)

5.

to talk hypocritically.

6.

to speak in the whining or singsong tone of a beggar; beg.

Relevant Questions




cant

2 [kant]

noun

1.

a salient angle.

2.

a sudden movement that tilts or overturns a thing.

3.

a slanting or tilted position.

4.

an oblique line or surface, as one formed by cutting off the corner of a square of cube.

5.

an oblique or slanting face of anything.

adjective

9.

oblique or slanting.

verb (used with object)

10.

to bevel; form an oblique surface upon.

11.

to put in an oblique position; tilt; tip.

12.

to throw with a sudden jerk.

verb (used without object)

13.

to take or have an inclined position; tilt; turn.

Origin:

1325–75; Middle English: side, border


Or if you prefer an american dictionary

cant

adjective ˈkant

Definition of CANT

dialect English

: lively, lusty

Origin of CANT

Middle English, probably from Middle Low German *kant

First Known Use: 14th century

Rhymes with CANT

ant, aunt, brant, chant, grant, Kant, pant, plant, rant, scant, slant

2cant

verb

Definition of CANT

transitive verb

1

: to give a cant or oblique edge to : bevel

2

: to set at an angle : tilt

3

chiefly British : to throw with a lurch

intransitive verb

1

: to pitch to one side : lean

2

: slope

Origin of CANT

3cant

First Known Use: circa 1543

3cant

noun

Definition of CANT

1

obsolete : corner, niche

2

: an external angle (as of a building)

3

: a log with one or more squared sides

4

a : an oblique or slanting surface

b : inclination, slope

Origin of CANT

Middle English cant side, probably from Middle Dutch or Middle French dialect; Middle Dutch, edge, corner, from Middle French dialect (Picard), from Latin canthus, cantus iron tire, perhaps of Celtic origin; akin to Welsh cant rim; perhaps akin to Greek kanthos corner of the eye

First Known Use: 1603

4cant

adjective

Definition of CANT

1

: having canted corners or sides

2

: inclined 2

First Known Use of CANT

1663

5cant

intransitive verb

Definition of CANT

1

: to talk or beg in a whining or singsong manner

2

: to speak in cant or jargon

3

: to talk hypocritically

Origin of CANT

perhaps from Middle French dialect (Norman-Picard) canter to tell, literally, to sing, from Latin cantare — more at chant

First Known Use: 1567

6cant

noun

Definition of CANT

1

: affected singsong or whining speech

2

a : the private language of the underworld

b obsolete : the phraseology peculiar to a religious class or sect

c : jargon 2

3

: a set or stock phrase

4

: the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments; especially : the insincere use of pious words

First Known Use of CANT

1640

Other Language Terms

cognate, collocation, homonym

Cant

abbreviation

Definition of CANT

1

Canticle of Canticles

2

Cantonese

Other Bible Terms

antediluvian, apocalyptic, apocrypha, behemoth

cant

noun ˈkant (Medical Dictionary)

Medical Definition of CANT

: an oblique or slanting surface


Context is everything. Maybe you thought he had misspelled it:-3

halfway;1418142 wrote: Well, at least my thoughts are being met with politeness and open-mindedness.

Of course I do shoot back when shot at first, but who doesn't?

Did I miss a FAQ on what to believe, but to believe in, and what to think? These responses all sound like they are coming from one person???

BTW: I listened to Limbaugh for 3 weeks as part of a study. That probably dooms me to hell?


Was that before or after you met all those cheerful Amish?

flopstock;1418140 wrote: I think you had a good guess last week. I'd had it a short time before, however... so if there is a prize to be had at the end of this, you just stand in line.:sneaky:


I don't know what I wrote this morning, let alone last week, but I probably still agree with myself.

SnoozeAgain;1418202 wrote: Was that before or after you met all those cheerful Amish?


Might have been before.

halfway;1418149 wrote: What is a "cant" and why are you calling me names? I never called you names. I presented some thoughts for discussion.

If the thoughts are not directly in line with your own you immediately resort to name calling? Am I mistaken? Maybe "cant" means something positive and you are simply giving me accolades?

If so, my apologies and thank you!


I did give the references.

As an accademic you ought to be used to the rough and tumble of discussion.

Mind you.......that reply is probably THE definition of cant.

Bruv;1418207 wrote: I did give the references.

As an accademic you ought to be used to the rough and tumble of discussion.

Mind you.......that reply is probably THE definition of cant.


You are so witty and sly.

As an academic, I could say a few more things....but I'll behave or get more warnings.

Easy to upset the little apple cart.

halfway;1418208 wrote: You are so witty and sly.

As an academic, I could say a few more things....but I'll behave or get more warnings.

Easy to upset the little apple cart.


I shall slyly give you a tip, it's probably the way you say it rather than what you say.

Bruv;1418211 wrote: I shall slyly give you a tip, it's probably the way you say it rather than what you say.


So I need some re-trainig on how I say things? Give me the cliff's notes and I'll start brushing up on the correct method.

Thanks in advance.

Actually, I'm having some of the best fun I've had in weeks verbally sparring with halfway. Frustrating, but fun.

halfway;1418118 wrote: I'm a lifelong liberal challenging current thought.


Really? No seriously? You? A liberal? Come ON! halfway, I'll respect you all day long for sticking to your guns on your HIGHLY conservative and right wing beliefs. That's OK, I understand that kind of thinking, I even understand how it stems from a fear of change and a desire for the less complex times of the past.

But to be as extremely conservative as you are and then to say, "I'm just a liberal challenging current thought." Well...I just can't believe that.

Saint_;1418250 wrote: Actually, I'm having some of the best fun I've had in weeks verbally sparring with halfway. Frustrating, but fun.


My dear boy of many experiences and years of toil under his belt.

Never wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig loves it.

I love it when trolls out themselves.

Saint_;1418251 wrote: Really? No seriously? You? A liberal? Come ON! halfway, I'll respect you all day long for sticking to your guns on your HIGHLY conservative and right wing beliefs. That's OK, I understand that kind of thinking, I even understand how it stems from a fear of change and a desire for the less complex times of the past.

But to be as extremely conservative as you are and then to say, "I'm just a liberal challenging current thought." Well...I just can't believe that.


And he voted for Obama................twice. :yh_rotfl

Amazing how many of you speak from the same mouth, with the same voice.

Diversity at it's finest. :wah:

halfway;1418335 wrote: Amazing how many of you speak from the same mouth, with the same voice.

Diversity at it's finest. :wah:


Have you ever seen any of us together? Think about it. :-3

AnneBoleyn;1418336 wrote: Have you ever seen any of us together? Think about it. :-3


Ha!!!

I am one of 6 different aliases on this board as well. One a monkey, two a Scot...., three a .....woman, four a man...., five a Brazilian, six an American, etc., etc.

There are only 10 different individual posters on the entire forum. :guitarist