Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Derail from Planned Parenthood video thread
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYeah, even in Texas, the coal strip mines have to be left in FAR better shape than they started off in. Sam's portrayal of coal mining is just flat out goofy."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostHey, I'm just joking around, you shouldn't take yourself so seriously there, Crystal
Here's the real question: why would you and other pro-life types choose such a usage of the term baby? Well, it's obviously not for scientific reasons, and it's not for practical purposes. Oh yeah, you're doing it for ...
Oh boy. It's not about whether the word baby is a proper medical term (it's not though) it's about whether your using it for the purposes of this conversation is for sound reasoning. It's obvious to everybody that you're using the word for propaganda to invoke emotional reactions out of people - and to stifle rational conversation. You know that when the chips are down, you've got nothing to help your case if you can't use emotional or fearful propaganda. Like I said, you're just like a fundamentalist fanatic in the way of Ben Stein.
And why do you say, "Baby, don't you mean fetus!" beyond trying to use emotional manipulation yourself when I have demonstrated that the term 'baby' is a perfectly valid term that has been used and is continued to be used by doctors and laymen alike? Hypocrisy is so fun, isn't it or are you the only one allowed to do it and everybody else can't? Face it, baby is a perfectly valid term to use and the only real reason you keep saying, "Baby, don't you mean fetus?" is because you want to engage in the very thing you accuse the opposition of and don't want to face your own double standards. Sorry, but the facts are there for all to see and you want the term 'baby' replaced with the term 'fetus' so you can hide behind the fact that you want to kill humans because if you can hide behind medical terms, you can control the language. Does it upset you that I will not let you control the language?
Oh boy, here we go again. You're ignorance is one again on display. First of all, yeah no crap, genius. I already said Galton was one of the founders of the eugenics philosophy in my post to you. Second of all, yeah a lot of it's proponents had racist views that they believed were backed up science, but they wee living in the butt end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when Crick and Watson hadn't developed the double-helix of DNA for another thirty years, and an even longer gap for Darwin in company. They working thirty years away from one of the greatest achievements of man kind... you are not. So going back in time and pointing out people you don't like held ignorant views is a dishonest tactic.
Margaret Sanger denounced Hitler's genocide over and over again. She also made clear that she never believed in the state making these decisions for people - that's why they call her a PRO-CHOICE advocate, get it? It means she wants you to have your right too, dummy. Hell, the Fascists in Italy and Spain took books on birth control...
Here comes the fun.
I guess you wasted six months education then. First off, dumbass, the Nazi's outlawed abortion and birth control, sweet pea.
What you didn't know that? Your simply cherry-picking the bits of history you want to use that make you look like you're right, while omitting the parts that obviously prove your case wrong. It's an historical fact the Nazi's in Germany and the fascists in both Italy and Spain banned abortion and birth control.
Mussolini and the Roman Catholic Church worked hand in hand to increase the population in Italy by encouraging more birth and banned contraceptives. Franco was even worse on this matter so we won't get into that. Point is, if you're trying to connect the two in practice, PPH and the Fascists couldn't have been further apart - in fact they hold your positions on this matter. That you don't let people in on this little fact of history shows you're either an idiot that doesn't know the history or a completely dishonest bag of misery that just wants to spew propaganda.
If we followed your logic of applying this guilt by association garbage to PPH, then Winston Churchill is a scumbag because he supported eugenics too.
"It shouldn't be forgotten," Linares says, by e-mail. "Since the social implications of a lot of current human genetics research are enormous it seems important that in judging what human genetics is doing now we maintain awareness of the history of this discipline."
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...-journal_N.htm
Has Planned Parenthood condemned the racism and other elements of the leaders of the past for the things they supported and did or have they tried hiding their past associations and pretending as though these links do not exist? Sure, eugenics is a stain upon many people, groups, and entire governments, but act as though it didn't exist and that it's supporters didn't do and say they things they did isn't the path to take. I have a good deal of respect for a group of people, who have a journal associated with these racist, but have taken steps to break their associations of their tainted past. Planned Parenthood has a tainted past, you can't deny this (unless you want to deny history), but what steps has the modern organizations taken to separate itself from it's racist past? Hiding it, doesn't make it go away.
Since Wernher Von Braun was also a Nazi and we followed your logic, the space flight program and Air Force ICBM's probably wouldn't have happened until who knows when. Robert Oppenheimer was influenced by eugenics and Nazi's too, so I guess he wouldn't have happened either - this is getting really sad just thinking back. Fact is, some the most impressive developments in physics, astronomy, engineering, aerospace, automotive, and general human advancement came from the Nazi's and Fascists whom all were eugenicists. The questionable moral compass they may have had at time does nothing to diminish the great achievements and insight, and Margaret Sanger should be no different. The only reason you apply this logic to her exclusively is due to your fanatic commitment to the anti-abortion movement that clouds your judgment and causes you to spew absolute propaganda.
Honey bunny, I think you've done enough damage to your credibility on this topic and if what you say is true about reading up on this for six months, then you need to seriously reevaluate the way you learn and whom you're learning it from.
I don't know where the hell Chesterton came from but... okay.
As for Stein, I have zero respect for him. Some of the most dishonest propagandists in history were speech writers, so he gets no points from me there. He has show what an idiot he is when he says things like "science leads you to killing people" and makes dishonest propaganda like Expelled that showed how educated he actually is. Above and beyond that, his foreign policy sounds like that of a mad man when he takes about impossible nuclear holocaust fantasies that have no basis in reality, and seem to based more on his phobia of Arabic cultures than anything else. He may be educated on economics but outside of that he's a clown and has earned the moron badge with flying colors. That you actually care enough to right this sad defense of a character like him speaks volumes about your level of honesty as well.
Oh dear, you're really showing your level of education again. Animals such as the wildebeest, deer, horses, pandas, rabbits, baboons, and giraffes are herbivorous to name a few, genius. Their diet is herbivorous with the only exceptions being when their environment forces them to resort opportunistic feedings such as droughts. This is basic biology, Crystal. I know that you're aware of this and are just stating it to try and put me in a corner but this is just dishonesty, frankly. This is why people avoid debates with you.
Lets see here: you use words as a way to make people react emotionally, you have fabricated the history of Fascism and Eugenics to promote your propaganda, you don't know the real history of the PPH movement, your logic would have resulted in the loss of mankind's most stunning achievements, you respect Ben Stein, and you don't know the basic diets of the worlds animals kingdom. Could you have spewed more ignorance in one post? It's stunning really. You proclaim to be such a damn wiz at this stuff and yet when one scratches just a little beneath the surface, you end up sounding like a buffoon. This is basic logic and knowledge and it seems you don't want to apply it to your thoughts at all. You call myself and others fundy atheists but it appears that Christian fundamentalism is still very much alive in your critical thinking skills, and the way you argue with people.
1. I have fabricated no history of fascism and eugenics and the fact you flat out refused to address a single thing I said, speaks volumes. The links between eugenics and Nazi philosophy is well known and well talked about in history books. The fact you're unaware of these basic links, speaks a lot about you. If that is wrong, go ahead and demonstrate what history I made up and why.
2. You flat out ignore that the excuses you make up to support eugenics supporters can be used to excuse away almost anybody for their silly arguments and statements. Does the fact that Ben Stein accomplished many thing, excuses away the other things he said and did? No, so go ahead and explain how the fact that the men you mentioned above are somehow excused away from their support of eugenics and their questionable past (such as the case of Nazi scientist) because they accomplishment great things. I could care less about Ben Stein and was using him to trap you into your own words and you fell right into it. Have fun digging your way out of your own hole.
3. Sorry, but my use of the term 'baby' is no different than your use of the term 'fetus' and your denial of what you are trying to do speaks volumes about you.
Have fun digging your way out of the hole you dug for yourself because this is what happens when you underestimate the intelligence of your opponents. You end up with a lot of egg on your face if you end up doing that. Keep digging and remember, never admit to an error, right?
Contrary to what you might think, I do not hold feelings of hatred for you. I'm just treating you the way you would have treated me or anyone else if they had said such nonsense. If you want people to be more respectful of you and handle you with kid gloves then you can just keep on wanting. You enjoy humiliating or trying to humiliate people and have defended it on multiple occasions so don't complain when it happens to you - it's really hypocritical. You knock it off and I will too.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 08-06-2015, 07:19 PM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
IOriginally posted by Psychic Missile View PostHis speech was in regard to economic policy. The tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting of social programs advocated by the Republicans are detrimental to the economy and are a hypocritical biting of the hand that feeds you. Businesses succeed because of the efforts of multiple parties, not the sole effort of an entrepreneur or CEO. Social programs and the spending of taxes on things like roads and schools allow for companies to exist at all, let alone prosper. Obama even gave a summary within his own speech: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
The Republican party seized on this out of context quote because it allows them to swindle voters who just want their fears and opinions validated and aren't interested in fact-checking or a nuanced viewpoint. Republicans want to push the idea that if you work hard, you can become rich. As long as conservatives believe that, they will vote to benefit the rich at their own expense, because they imagine that one day they too will benefit from pro-wealthy, anti-poor policy.
As for the Prez, he's a collectivist. He actually believes that If you own a business, you are obligated to pay the State back and redistribute the wealth. And where does a lot of that money go? Not to our vets. They go to people like the lady I described. Able to work but are lazy and irresponsible and we, the money makers of America, are paying for her to have kids from different men and live with her parents paying nothing but still she gets a monthly check and a huge tax return even though she pays zero taxes. Liberal logic at its best.Faith is not what we fall back to when reason isn't available. It's the conviction of what we have reason to believe. Greg Koukl
The loss of objectivity in moral thought does not lead to liberation. It leads to oppression. Secular ideologies preach liberty, but they practice tyranny. — Nancy Pearcey
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
In other words, you can refute it and instead engage in name calling to make up for your lack of arguments. Nice! It's really amusing to watch you try to defend the words of racist and their kind by saying, "Oh yeah, the developed this scientific breakthrough!" as though that excuses away their racism. Sorry, but as I'll show below, the only ignorant fundy here is you. Have fun digging your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.
Besides, I'm just doing what you do, what do you not like it when your opponents use your same logic? Besides, GK Chesterton saw Eugenics as supporting great evil back in the 1920s (or have you never read his work Eugenics and Other Evils), so it isn't as though refutations to eugenic thought didn't exist. Sorry, but supporting racism, in the name of science, is no different than supporting racism, in the name of social progress or politics.
Moron, I never said that. I said that by your logic, some of humanities greatest achievements would have been lost, and many great political advancements would have been too. Besides, Churchill and Roosevelt supported eugenic ideas and I don't see you throwing out their ideas for government. Jefferson, Washington, and Adams owned slaves and you've yet to condemn the US constitution. It's just a unique double standard that only apply to abortion rights and nothing else.
Was that before or after the holocaust came forward and before or after she got done praising Nazi efforts to apply eugenics to their government and their policy? Anybody can condemn an event after it happened and after they want to separate themselves from policies they supported, but did she condemn the Nazi's and their policies before or after their attempts to kill off the Jews came to light? Anybody can condemn something after the fact and scream, "I never supported that!" because that is done in politics all the time (look how the democrats keep trying to separate themselves from the Iraq War, despite the fact many of them voted in support of it back in 2003). Is it true or false that Nazi Scientist had articles published in Birth Control Review before WWII broke out? Is it true or false that eugenics supporters praised Nazi efforts to enact eugenics before the war? Do you deny that Nazi scientist and doctors published articles in their publications, before the war or that eugenics supporters were supportive of their efforts, before the war? Of course they did and just like any prudent person would do, Margaret Sanger dropped her support for their efforts after the defeated enemy was made into the very definition of evil, but the question remains James, did she and her supporters do this before the war (when it would have shown an actual condemning of Nazi eugenics efforts) or after the war (when being associated with the Nazi's would be a giant weight tied around the necks of anybody associated with them and dropping your support was the only prudent action to save yourself politically). I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words and the fact that she and her supporters were supporting Nazi efforts, before the war, and only decided to condemn them afterwords speaks volumes about them. Your inability to notice that little fact, says a lot about you too. They were for Nazi eugenics efforts before they were against them and denying this is denying the history behind them or do I need to dig up the quotes where many eugenics supporters decided to support Nazi eugenics efforts before they decided to be against Nazi eugenics efforts?
I guess we should break-up the RCC for their Fascist support in that time period. I love your logic... especially when it back fires on you.
Propaganda (SoR definition): "HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!"Here comes the fun.
False, Nazi's outlawed abortion and birth control for aryans and were very supportive of efforts of abortion and birth control for non aryan women idiot. Try again and if you don't believe me sweety, go ahead and demonstrate otherwise. Nazi's awarded aryan women who had children and did lots of things to encourage these women to have lots and lots of children, but to the races they saw as inferior, they could care less what they did or didn't do (again, searching the web would before this as true). While it is cute to watch you pretending to be an historian, do yourself a favor, stop pretending. You're not an historian.
Yup, the Nazi's did support abortion for non aryan groups but it's impossible to say how often it was ever used. Thing is, it's not right to call them pro-choice or pro-life in either sense of the words. But it is an historical fact that the Nazi's (and their counterparts around the world) believed a womans womb belonged to the state, and that it had the right to govern those kind of decisions for women. Aryan women? They got arrested for trying to get abortions and some ended up in jail for providing those services Franco and Mussolini were clear about abortion and birth control being outlawed for all, which is why the Catholic church supported their effort in The Battle of Births. Yeah, Mussolini (and Hitler) believed women had a duty to bear children and if they ever tried to kill one... jail time for you.
Why do you talk about that element of history, Crystal? Oh right. You only want o talk about the bits that help you out.
What you didn't report, sweety, is that they were quite supportive of birth control and abortion efforts for the 'defective' and made it against the law for aryan men and women to use birth control or abortion (unless the baby was 'defective'). Remember, eugenics philosophy is, "More children for the fit and less children for the unfit" or are you not aware of these little facts? Oh dear. an historian you are not and you really need to stop pretending to be one. Nazi's could care less if the Jews, Slavs, etc killed their children or used birth control. They only cared if aryans did.
blah blah blah... redundant crap.
The fact the US government made deals with Nazi's (because many of these Nazi scientist were involved in forcing Jewish condemned prisoners to build rockets for them and they wanted to avoid going to trial for their crimes) is a stain upon US history and a moral failure of the US government. Unless of course, you're a supporter of the idea that anything, as long as it furthers your goals, is justified and you want to forget the ideals the US was supposedly founded upon. Sorry, but these people should be properly condemned for supporting their racist past and shouldn't be hidden away because, "They did great things for X, Y, or Z" because that excuses away their crimes or their support for the crimes that were taken with the ideals they supported. The idea that some people are less worthy of life and are better off never being born or dead is a horrible evil and you making excuses for this evil by screaming, "WAA! Propaganda!" tells me all I need to hear about how far south your moral compass points. This is no different than people trying to hide the evils slavery and Jim Crow laws (and their supporters) by saying, "Well, it helped many people do great things!" and that somehow justifies enslaving blacks and forcing them to pick your cotton? That somehow justifies polices of racism where entire generations of blacks were denied basic rights and treated as second class citizens, by their own government? Your excuses are running thin because if racism, in the name of social cohesion is immoral; racism, in the name of scientific progress, is too. Stop making excuses for eugenics and it's obvious racism and start properly condemning the evil and the horrors it brought forth.
It's so adorable to watch your excuses for people's racism and ignore the fact that those same excuses can be applied to a great deal of things and can be used to justify almost anything we want. Keep digging and remember, if making excuses for the behavior of eugenics and its supporters can be justified, slavery and Jim Crow can be too. Unless of course, you can explain how denying entire groups of people basic rights, due to their genetic heritage, is really any different than denying people their basic rights, based upon their color of their skin. Sorry, racism is racism, no matter what excuses you can dig up to support it and no matter what you try to do to excuse it away. If the slave owners can't be excused away for their ownership of slaves, the eugenics can't be excused away for their racist policies either.
Actually, it speaks volumes about your level of honesty because it seems that you want to ignore that Ben Stein has done a good deal of things and has made many accomplishments by trying to stain them with excuses like, "He supports crazy things like this!" and ignore your same logic can be turned around on you. Does the fact that Ben Stein is a graduate of Columbia and Yale excuses away some of the silly things he says or does? No, so why does the fact that Churchill was a great leader of the British people, that lead them though WWII, excuse away his support for a policy that is racist to the core? Why does the accomplishments of any of them men you mention above excuse away their support for the racist ideology of eugenics? Sorry James, but if the accomplishments that Ben Stein has made doesn't excuses away some of the silly things he says and the nonsense he supports, why does that same excuse fly for people you approve of? Let me guess, those excuses only work, as long as the person in question believes the right things and believes the correct stuff, huh? Go ahead and choose the horse you want to ride on either accomplishments can excuse away a persons support and associations or it doesn't. What horse do you choose to ride?
This is EXACTLY why so many people hate talking to you. You either can't read or just want to distort your opponents view to something easier for you to handle. I never stated that folk like Von Braun can be excused for their crimes, that people like Sanger can be excused for their racism, or that others can be excused for different crimes. Those are your words and have nothing to do with my point. My point was that it's the ideas merit that count, not whether that person has certain character flaws or participated in certain moral repugnance. It's a genetic fallacy that has zero bearing on whether an idea is right or wrong. This very simple point evades you over and over again, and I can see it's not going to suddenly click with you.
This is just how you argue with people. You start off with a flawed premise that when somebody presses you on, you reply with word salad posts that are a chore to deal with. You distort your opponents arguments to mud sling and character assassinate them, and complain when people insult you back. Then you throw in some logical fallacies to complete the deal and from your proverbial glass house, accuse everybody of doing exactly what you've done. Well, I don't have all the time in the world to waste it somebody that has such a warped idea of inquiry into others opinions. It's just you projecting your frustrations on to m and others, and nothing else. So go ahead and have the last word, I don't need it.
PS: It's funny to watch you piss and moan about insults when you've been the biggest defender of them on this forum for years. You get what you give and you've had this coming for awhile. Don't like it? Look in the mirror for the cause of it.
Sweety, do they normally live on meats? While it is cute to watch you try to say, "In desperate times, they might do this!" doesn't excuse away what they normally do or that human diets have evolved to include both (unless you want to deny this).Last edited by Sea of red; 08-07-2015, 07:11 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sea of red View PostReal nice. Accuse your opponents of supporting racist ideas and twist their words to support your claims. I never said people can be excused from their support of racism and eugenics because of scientific achievement, sweetheart. Those are your words not mine. Good job on being a dishonest, character assassinating, bucket of mud.
Moron, I never said that. I said that by your logic, some of humanities greatest achievements would have been lost, and many great political advancements would have been too. Besides, Churchill and Roosevelt supported eugenic ideas and I don't see you throwing out their ideas for government. Jefferson, Washington, and Adams owned slaves and you've yet to condemn the US constitution. It's just a unique double standard that only apply to abortion rights and nothing else.
More of your warped logic. Do you apply that standard to Roosevelt and Churchill? No, didn't think so. You only apply this criteria to one group and one group alone - which shows what your motivations here are. Fact is, lots of scientists, politicians, philosophers, and even civil rights leaders promoted eugenic ideas. Whether those ideas are valid or not has nothing to do with if these people promoted Nazism - an entirely different set of ideas. Do you deny that information about the Holocaust was difficult to come by in their day? Do you deny that Sanger and company condemned the Nazi's civil rights abuses against minority groups? Sanger was never a Nazi supporter, sweetie. She wanted nothing to do with those ideas in the beginning, and nothing to do with when they were going on, period.
I guess we should break-up the RCC for their Fascist support in that time period. I love your logic... especially when it back fires on you.
You tried, that's what counts.
I'm pretending to be an historian? You keep acting like some trained authoritative figure on this stuff and it's obvious you either don't know a lot of the history or you're just trying to re-write the history.
Yup, the Nazi's did support abortion for non aryan groups but it's impossible to say how often it was ever used. Thing is, it's not right to call them pro-choice or pro-life in either sense of the words. But it is an historical fact that the Nazi's (and their counterparts around the world) believed a womans womb belonged to the state, and that it had the right to govern those kind of decisions for women. Aryan women? They got arrested for trying to get abortions and some ended up in jail for providing those services Franco and Mussolini were clear about abortion and birth control being outlawed for all, which is why the Catholic church supported their effort in The Battle of Births. Yeah, Mussolini (and Hitler) believed women had a duty to bear children and if they ever tried to kill one... jail time for you.
Why do you talk about that element of history, Crystal? Oh right. You only want o talk about the bits that help you out.
Translation: Yup, they were anti-abortion 99% of the time.
This is EXACTLY why so many people hate talking to you. You either can't read or just want to distort your opponents view to something easier for you to handle.
I never stated that folk like Von Braun can be excused for their crimes, that people like Sanger can be excused for their racism, or that others can be excused for different crimes. Those are your words and have nothing to do with my point. My point was that it's the ideas merit that count, not whether that person has certain character flaws or participated in certain moral repugnance. It's a genetic fallacy that has zero bearing on whether an idea is right or wrong. This very simple point evades you over and over again, and I can see it's not going to suddenly click with you.
This is just how you argue with people. You start off with a flawed premise that when somebody presses you on, you reply with word salad posts that are a chore to deal with. You distort your opponents arguments to mud sling and character assassinate them, and complain when people insult you back. Then you throw in some logical fallacies to complete the deal and from your proverbial glass house, accuse everybody of doing exactly what you've done. Well, I don't have all the time in the world to waste it somebody that has such a warped idea of inquiry into others opinions. It's just you projecting your frustrations on to m and others, and nothing else. So go ahead and have the last word, I don't need it.
PS: It's funny to watch you piss and moan about insults when you've been the biggest defender of them on this forum for years. You get what you give and you've had this coming for awhile. Don't like it? Look in the mirror for the cause of it.
And please learn what an opportunistic feeding is.Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 08-07-2015, 10:01 AM."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI don't have to, I come from a farm country that had nothing but potato fields to support a living. It was a culture in collapse because there was no jobs to keep things running there. The local government tried various things to no success, because they're no jobs. I'm sure there are various cultures in the US that will have similar fates.
Are you proposing to keep them on government life support, or to halt other projects simple for that reason?
Coal won't disappear overnight Sparko, you're making it sound like it'll disappear over a year. However its true that no matter how you twist or turn the numbers, coal will become a minor player in the energy market by 2050, even if the only forces acting are free market forces. Its pretty much inevitable. The government can speed it up, or not, however its this communities responsibility to adapt to the future. They can ask for help to it of course, but they have a responsibility to adapt if they can.
If coal does end up as a minor player because of the market that is one thing. It is completely another for the government to shut down coal mines when there is still a demand for coal. Which is what is happening.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostSome relatively easy reading addressing mountaintop removal, which is what I mentioned.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThey strip mined the mountain top behind my Grandfather's house back in the 1980's and they had to rebuild and replant it. Today you can't even tell where the strip mine was. They did not dump the overburden into the valley, they trucked it away while mining then replaced it when finished. Nobody's land around the mined mountain was affected in any way. In most cases the mining companies will buy the mineral rights to land but not the land itself and they have to leave it in as good or better shape than before they mined it.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWhy do we even try to argue with Mr Know-it-all-Google-butt?
"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postgot me. why are we discussing strip mining in a planned parenthood abortion thread?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostI agree; when all you have to counter scientific study is a cursory anecdote, one has to wonder why y'all bother.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postgot me. why are we discussing strip mining in a planned parenthood abortion thread?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWe don't have any mountains in Texas. I doubt you have any in your mitten shaped state, either.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
230 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
32 responses
173 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 08:22 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
284 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment