| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#201
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Just for the record
|
|
#202
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 26/09/2011 12:12 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 9/26/2011 1:48 PM, wrote: Being a white guy growing up in a black neighborhood in the 50s and 60s , I knew of both. You and Harry have something in common. I wonder why Harry is ashamed to admit it. I looked up his address since and the income levels of the area. Sure didn't look like the upscale neighborhood to me. -- Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. -- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude |
|
#204
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/11 5:00 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:14:10 -0600, wrote: On 26/09/2011 12:12 PM, Drifter wrote: On 9/26/2011 1:48 PM, wrote: Being a white guy growing up in a black neighborhood in the 50s and 60s , I knew of both. You and Harry have something in common. I wonder why Harry is ashamed to admit it. I looked up his address since and the income levels of the area. Sure didn't look like the upscale neighborhood to me. "Cawlvert" County is where DC people ran to when they wanted to get away from black people. Actually, these days and for the last nearly 10 years, Calvert County is where many people from Virginia moved to get away from the crowding and congestion of northern Virginia. It's one of the reasons why we moved to it. |
|
#205
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/2011 6:01 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 9/26/11 5:00 PM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:14:10 -0600, wrote: On 26/09/2011 12:12 PM, Drifter wrote: On 9/26/2011 1:48 PM, wrote: Being a white guy growing up in a black neighborhood in the 50s and 60s , I knew of both. You and Harry have something in common. I wonder why Harry is ashamed to admit it. I looked up his address since and the income levels of the area. Sure didn't look like the upscale neighborhood to me. "Cawlvert" County is where DC people ran to when they wanted to get away from black people. Actually, these days and for the last nearly 10 years, Calvert County is where many people from Virginia moved to get away from the crowding and congestion of northern Virginia. It's one of the reasons why we moved to it. Your hatred of black people had nothing to do with it? Swear to God? |
|
#206
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:49:50 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/09/2011 10:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 9/26/2011 11:41 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 26/09/2011 8:24 AM, JustWait wrote: On 9/26/2011 10:15 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 8:26 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote: So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human? At conception. === That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else. What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you want? You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now that you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law, and nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it. It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a secular law. There is no such thing as "settled law." It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other (secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane, right? Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals beliefs are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to let others live their own lives. Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal and conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the right to tell others what to do. Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes down to how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own choices? What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a "compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an abortion?? So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman and the doctor? It isn't your womb after all. How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?) Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we are not the same). My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more "compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal, and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more "compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more "compromise" do you want? No more is really needed, provided the women have access without the harassment and bully mentality. Their choice. Yeah, as long as they only get that one point of view... What if it was the other side that was funded by the Govt and wouldn't allow any talk of abortion in their clinics? That is to say, what would you think if Planned Parenthood actually gave information beneficial to a woman who wanted to say be a parent, and couldn't talk about abortion at all. Would you think of that as "compromise" too? Don't get me wrong, I am nether pro nor con in the decision, just believe it is their right to their body. Government (nor religion) shouldn't be used to dictate having babies. Yeah, but if you support Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not support a womans right to make an "informed" decision about parenthood. planned Parenthood is an abortion mill, they have no interest in "informed" clients, only providing abortions... It isn't 10,000 BC with a dwindling population of only 4 million world wide. As of 1825 give or take the population was a billion. Today 7 billion....it can't continue this way as one way or another there are going to be limits. If anything, in large areas of the world we should be looking at controls in birth. So, you want women to make decisions based on that??? Our jobs should be to our family, not to the state to provided breeding vessels and soldiers. Abortions don't create families... Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to crime either. So, all those aborted kids were gonna' come up bad? I can see this is futile. Like a Progressive, you are making it a binary issue and you decide which is 0 and which is 1... A good number of them would, because whether we like it or not, a good number of them would come from unwed, unsupported, inner city welfare recipients. I am sure if the anti-abortion types raised the money and paid these women to have the children. Oh wait, the idea is for someone else to pay for it. Ya, right. As I said, the anti-abortion movement is just another form of bully mentality of idle fanatical minds. Last thing the world needs is another starving, neglected, welfare sucking, poorly raised delinquent. Look at Africa, billion new babies or so in the next 10 or 12 years to add to the starvation and poverty they already have. Brilliant. /sarcasm Africa's problems are not the result of anti-abortion types. Sometimes you come across as though your head is where the sun don't shine. |
|
#207
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/2011 1:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/09/2011 10:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 9/26/2011 11:41 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 26/09/2011 8:24 AM, JustWait wrote: On 9/26/2011 10:15 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 8:26 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote: So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human? At conception. === That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else. What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you want? You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now that you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law, and nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it. It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a secular law. There is no such thing as "settled law." It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other (secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane, right? Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals beliefs are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to let others live their own lives. Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal and conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the right to tell others what to do. Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes down to how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own choices? What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a "compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an abortion?? So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman and the doctor? It isn't your womb after all. How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?) Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we are not the same). My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more "compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal, and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more "compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more "compromise" do you want? No more is really needed, provided the women have access without the harassment and bully mentality. Their choice. Yeah, as long as they only get that one point of view... What if it was the other side that was funded by the Govt and wouldn't allow any talk of abortion in their clinics? That is to say, what would you think if Planned Parenthood actually gave information beneficial to a woman who wanted to say be a parent, and couldn't talk about abortion at all. Would you think of that as "compromise" too? Don't get me wrong, I am nether pro nor con in the decision, just believe it is their right to their body. Government (nor religion) shouldn't be used to dictate having babies. Yeah, but if you support Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not support a womans right to make an "informed" decision about parenthood. planned Parenthood is an abortion mill, they have no interest in "informed" clients, only providing abortions... It isn't 10,000 BC with a dwindling population of only 4 million world wide. As of 1825 give or take the population was a billion. Today 7 billion....it can't continue this way as one way or another there are going to be limits. If anything, in large areas of the world we should be looking at controls in birth. So, you want women to make decisions based on that??? Our jobs should be to our family, not to the state to provided breeding vessels and soldiers. Abortions don't create families... Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to crime either. So, all those aborted kids were gonna' come up bad? I can see this is futile. Like a Progressive, you are making it a binary issue and you decide which is 0 and which is 1... A good number of them would, because whether we like it or not, a good number of them would come from unwed, unsupported, inner city welfare recipients. I am sure if the anti-abortion types raised the money and paid these women to have the children. Oh wait, the idea is for someone else to pay for it. Ya, right. As I said, the anti-abortion movement is just another form of bully mentality of idle fanatical minds. Last thing the world needs is another starving, neglected, welfare sucking, poorly raised delinquent. Yeah, so lets kill each and every baby we can to make sure we don't get a bad one... You guys kill me, I just never thought of you as a progressive, forcing your ideals on women... Cause there is only one voice that comes from Planned Abortionhood... Look at Africa, billion new babies or so in the next 10 or 12 years to add to the starvation and poverty they already have. Brilliant. /sarcasm |
|
#208
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/2011 1:45 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/09/2011 10:00 AM, JustWait wrote: On 9/26/2011 11:41 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 26/09/2011 8:24 AM, JustWait wrote: On 9/26/2011 10:15 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 8:26 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote: So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human? At conception. === That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else. What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you want? You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now that you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law, and nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it. It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a secular law. There is no such thing as "settled law." It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other (secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane, right? Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals beliefs are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to let others live their own lives. Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal and conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the right to tell others what to do. Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes down to how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own choices? What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a "compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an abortion?? So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman and the doctor? It isn't your womb after all. How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?) Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we are not the same). My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more "compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal, and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more "compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more "compromise" do you want? No more is really needed, provided the women have access without the harassment and bully mentality. Their choice. Yeah, as long as they only get that one point of view... What if it was the other side that was funded by the Govt and wouldn't allow any talk of abortion in their clinics? That is to say, what would you think if Planned Parenthood actually gave information beneficial to a woman who wanted to say be a parent, and couldn't talk about abortion at all. Would you think of that as "compromise" too? Don't get me wrong, I am nether pro nor con in the decision, just believe it is their right to their body. Government (nor religion) shouldn't be used to dictate having babies. Yeah, but if you support Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not support a womans right to make an "informed" decision about parenthood. planned Parenthood is an abortion mill, they have no interest in "informed" clients, only providing abortions... It isn't 10,000 BC with a dwindling population of only 4 million world wide. As of 1825 give or take the population was a billion. Today 7 billion....it can't continue this way as one way or another there are going to be limits. If anything, in large areas of the world we should be looking at controls in birth. So, you want women to make decisions based on that??? Our jobs should be to our family, not to the state to provided breeding vessels and soldiers. Abortions don't create families... Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to crime either. So, all those aborted kids were gonna' come up bad? I can see this is futile. Like a Progressive, you are making it a binary issue and you decide which is 0 and which is 1... Not a binary issue at all. What the woman and the doctor decide to do is none of my (or your) damned business. It is just a liberal bullying of people from the fanatical emotional knee jerks. Then why not let the doctors or Planned Abortionhood types discuss alternatives to Abortion, can't stand up to the scrutiny??? |
|
#209
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/2011 1:55 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 26/09/2011 10:33 AM, wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:41:09 -0600, wrote: Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to crime either. Nuck, you have a point Maybe they are just not framing the issue correctly. They should say abortion is the most effective way to increase the high school graduation rate, cut the crime rate and reduce the number of people on welfare. And Africa/Haiti are good examples of what happens with excessive ouof control breeding of unsupportable children. Decay results as population over runs resources. But the reality is religion uses this as a way to out populate the competition. No secret why Catholics are officially not to use birth control. In fact, in the past kings would have wars to deal with young population growth to cut down the young aggressive male population and maintain control for their kingdoms. Why do people think the middle east and parts of Africa are a mess? Somalia for example, go in there 20 year ago and feed, they breed and now the problem is worse as you have a new crop of gang banging thugs hyped up on the need for violence in their misery. So your answer is government funded, and protected "violence"? Remember, the government pays for abortions, but won't even discuss alternatives... Again, with no opposition at all, what are you all crying about? |
|
#210
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just for the record
On 9/26/2011 7:07 PM, John H wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:49:50 -0600, wrote: On 26/09/2011 10:42 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 9/26/2011 11:41 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 26/09/2011 8:24 AM, JustWait wrote: On 9/26/2011 10:15 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 8:26 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 9:49 PM, Canuck57 wrote: On 25/09/2011 3:41 PM, JustWait wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:44 AM, Canuck57 wrote: On 24/09/2011 5:11 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 18:31:39 -0400, JustWait wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:08 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:57:46 -0400, wrote: So answer his question. Just when does a fertilized egg become a human? At conception. === That's a religious view not supportable by any logic or science. It even fails the common sense test. You are entitled to your beliefs as long as you don't try to legislate them for everyone else. What do you care? We have abortion on demand now, what more do you want? You have taken the parents out of the equation, which "even fails the common sense test". Like I said before, compromise for abortion advocates, and most other zealots is just a means to an end.. Now that you have it 100% your way you want it to be considered settled law, and nobody else can have an opinion on it.. I get it. It actually was "settled law" until the religious zealots, with whom you apparently identify, tried to make their religious opinion a secular law. There is no such thing as "settled law." It is sad that parents had to be "taken out of the equation," but there are parents that, due to religious convictions, will allow children to starve, go without medical treatment, and other (secularly) ridiculous actions. Even now, there are parents that feel that NOT vaccinating their children (boys AND girls) against HPV, which causes cervical cancer, will keep then chaste and pure. They are even taking their position to court to defend their right as parents to allow their children to get cervical cancer. But that is sane, right? Parents have been taken out of the equation because the liberals beliefs are contrary to those of conservatives and the liberals cannot stand to let others live their own lives. Actually, when it comes to abortion and religion, drop the liberal and conservative thing. Bot sides have their fanatics that feel the right to tell others what to do. Libertarian versus statism might have better alignment. Comes down to how much do you believe others have the rights to make their own choices? What more do they want? They already have abortion on demand as a "compromise", what is next, will they get to choose who must have an abortion?? So? What is wrong with the choice being exclusively between the woman and the doctor? It isn't your womb after all. How about government dictating circumcision? (or banning it?) Or maybe one step further, claim your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized. (an every genome has defects, that is why we are not the same). My point is, why are we even talking about it.. How much more "compromise" do you want, you have abortion on demand now, paid for and delivered by organizations who have only one solution in their arsenal, and make a ton of money on it, with no right for any other information or opinion to the young girl that walks in....? if there is any more "compromise"... we will be at the point of: "government dictating circumcision (or banning it?) Or claiming your genetics are not good enough and you must be sterilized." So, I ask you again, how much more "compromise" do you want? No more is really needed, provided the women have access without the harassment and bully mentality. Their choice. Yeah, as long as they only get that one point of view... What if it was the other side that was funded by the Govt and wouldn't allow any talk of abortion in their clinics? That is to say, what would you think if Planned Parenthood actually gave information beneficial to a woman who wanted to say be a parent, and couldn't talk about abortion at all. Would you think of that as "compromise" too? Don't get me wrong, I am nether pro nor con in the decision, just believe it is their right to their body. Government (nor religion) shouldn't be used to dictate having babies. Yeah, but if you support Planned Parenthood, you absolutely do not support a womans right to make an "informed" decision about parenthood. planned Parenthood is an abortion mill, they have no interest in "informed" clients, only providing abortions... It isn't 10,000 BC with a dwindling population of only 4 million world wide. As of 1825 give or take the population was a billion. Today 7 billion....it can't continue this way as one way or another there are going to be limits. If anything, in large areas of the world we should be looking at controls in birth. So, you want women to make decisions based on that??? Our jobs should be to our family, not to the state to provided breeding vessels and soldiers. Abortions don't create families... Abortions don't create starving illiterate homeless children turning to crime either. So, all those aborted kids were gonna' come up bad? I can see this is futile. Like a Progressive, you are making it a binary issue and you decide which is 0 and which is 1... A good number of them would, because whether we like it or not, a good number of them would come from unwed, unsupported, inner city welfare recipients. I am sure if the anti-abortion types raised the money and paid these women to have the children. Oh wait, the idea is for someone else to pay for it. Ya, right. As I said, the anti-abortion movement is just another form of bully mentality of idle fanatical minds. Last thing the world needs is another starving, neglected, welfare sucking, poorly raised delinquent. Look at Africa, billion new babies or so in the next 10 or 12 years to add to the starvation and poverty they already have. Brilliant. /sarcasm Africa's problems are not the result of anti-abortion types. Sometimes you come across as though your head is where the sun don't shine. Obviously he is a ideologue when it comes to this subject.. Almost to the point of acting like a progressive... He thinks he is the ultimate authority and there is just no room for compromise or other opinion to the point where he is making up hyperbole as quickly as Krause or the Plum... |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Just for the Record... | General | |||
| Just for the Record... | General | |||
| Just for the Record... | General | |||
| Just for the record... | General | |||
| For the Record...the real record! | ASA | |||
![Drifter[_2_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
