Because Legal Abortions Are So “Safe”

Yup.

Two employees of a Philadelphia abortion clinic where live, viable babies were allegedly killed and a patient died after being given on overdose of painkillers pleaded guilty on Thursday to murder.Guilty pleas to third-degree murder were entered by Adrienne Moton, 34, and Sherry West, 52, who both worked for Dr. Kermit Gosnell at what prosecutors have described as a decrepit and unsanitary clinic known as Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia.

Due to a court-issued gag order, attorneys declined to comment on reports that no plea agreement was reached in the case.

Sentencing was set for December 2 by Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner. The maximum penalty for third-degree murder is 40 years in prison.

Seven more defendants face charges in the case, including Gosnell, who a grand jury in January said, “killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy — and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.”

 

About these ads

114 thoughts on “Because Legal Abortions Are So “Safe”

    1. neocon1

      We will tolerate no appeal to violence here. You seem to have a hard time understanding this. Do not do this again or you will find your posts eliminated. //Moderator

      1. neocon1

        mod/
        it was a wardrobe malfunction.
        My double secret, decoder ring was set to IMPLY something not intended for untrained eyes, or discerning individuals = sarcasm.

        I have re set it to a default position. :)

      2. fed up

        neocon1 you are so full of it. I saw that post and it was not sarcasm any more than if the topic was about jewish people and you said where is hitler when you need him. you are a liar and a coward if you are man enough to say what you said at least be man enough to own up to it and not lie and pretend it was innocent, you do this all the time with your *** to fill in for cuss words and talk about guns and shooting people what a phoney you are. you are a big man till you get cauht then you fold like a cheap lawn chair and make excuses

      3. neocon1

        flopup

        No Fool
        it is you leftards who threaten violence all the time.
        I have posted dozens of people from 0bama, van jones, hoffa, SEIU, AFL-CIO to celebrities who call for violence, revolution>
        I merely point out there are some on our side who will not cower in a corner IF they make good on THEIR threats.
        other than that SOD OFF Moron.

        let me ask you this?
        IF you could go back in time would you kill Hitler, Stalin, Mao if you had the chance to and save millions of lives?

      4. fed up

        I was not talking about abortion which I hate as much as you do but about you being a coward pretending you were being sarcastic not owning up to what you really said you got caught then tried to weaslw out with excuses. go ahead call names be a loudmouth but you did say what you said you did try to weasle out with excuses. you are crazy to say those things about me all you know about me is that I call you a coward for lying about what you said and there you go being a weasle again using bad language pretending you are not.. you make stuff up about me but you are wrong and a weasle and a coward becuse you are still hiding from your own words

  1. Green Mountain Boy

    What can be said? Murder marches onward and the opposition says that life is a matter for the state to decide.

    What will you do when the state decides you have no right to live?

    1. Jeremiah

      What will you do when the state decides you have no right to live?

      Green Mountain Boy,

      I will show them how much right THEY have to live. And in no uncertain terms.

      But that’s just the point … we have a means of self-defense, whereas the unborn have no defense, or choice for that matter in their fate.

      So those of us who do have a means of self-defense, should use the resources we have to stand up, and give a voice to the unborn.

      1. neocon1

        jer

        So those of us who do have a means of self-defense, should use the resources we have to stand up, and give a voice to the unborn.

        ah ah ah …bad boy, bad boy LOL

        neocon1 October 27, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

  2. cory

    I don’t get the title. It sounds like these were not legal abortions, ergo discussing the safety of legal abortions in this context doesn’t really make sense. Yes, this sounds awful and no, it is not the same thing as taking a pill and aborting a bundle of 32 cells.

    1. js03

      its not surprising you dont understand…we expect that of you…its part of that reprobate mind you have…nothing to worry about…its natural

      1. js03

        its a proper description of libtard stooges whose mind is incapable of accepting pure truth without exceptions and spins…those who are left to do what is not convenient in life…like get pregnant and have an abortion…and those who support the same…

        a reprobate mind is a person who cannot be fundamentally honest to himself and others…

        and it is not contained in the SAT…but nice try stooge

    2. neocon1

      corky

      32 cells = a human being.
      try breaking a turtle or eagle egg, that is just a lump of cells.

      1. David

        You think turtles and eagles deserve the same rights as humans? I didn’t know you were vegan, neocon.

      2. neocon1

        davit

        just stupid? or lack of reading comprehension on the short bus?

        Me ? Id have the eggs for breakfast.
        over easy with rye toast.

      3. Green Mountain Boy

        Strange country we live in. Its legal to murder babies but you go to jail for possesing an eagle egg.

        Maybe that was the point David.

    3. Green Mountain Boy

      And you are nothing other than a bundle of about 50 trillion cells. Whats the differnce? Life is now only a matter of cell count?

      You really don’t have much to worry about though. The opposition won’t oppose your legalised murder. That would take courage, something sorely lacking in the opposition these days.

      Until election time, that is. Then the lip service begins.

      1. cory

        “And you are nothing other than a bundle of about 50 trillion cells. Whats the differnce?”

        Just short of 50 trillion cells, cognition, self-awareness, emotions, a whole lot of organs, and basically everything besides genetic material that makes me human.

      2. tiredoflibbs

        Ah, here is cory flinging poop (like the Occupy Wherever Anarchists) and hoping something sticks.

        So, to you life is determined by cell count and what cognition and self awareness? You are aware that you are born with the most amount of brain cells you are going to have at birth. They grow and do not multiply. You are aware of that. In most cases, I would say a newborn and even a fetus has more braincells than you and most other adults.

        So since you have a lesser count of brain cells which give you the ability for cognition and self awareness, does that mean your life is worth less than theirs – while the law allows, the killing of said unborn baby?

      3. Green Mountain Boy

        Ahh, the talk and build a fire rule huh? So its not a human unless it has arms and legs and can can talk.

        Nice definition of humanity you have there. Hope you never are a victim of your own rules.

      4. cory

        GMB,

        I didn’t say that anybody who did not have all of the things I just listed was okay to kill/abort, but if you’re going to pick really stupid examples, then I’m going to give you the pile of obvious reasons that killing me and aborting within days of conception are not the same thing. There are a huge number of metrics you gain and lose someplace between conception and birth, and all well before “talk and build a fire”.

        “So, to you life is determined by cell count and what cognition and self awareness? You are aware that you are born with the most amount of brain cells you are going to have at birth. They grow and do not multiply. You are aware of that. In most cases, I would say a newborn and even a fetus has more braincells than you and most other adults.”

        Gee, now I have a decision to make. Do I A) point out that everything you just said is actually not true or B) point out that
        if my metric for human life is being past a threshold of congition and awareness that none of what you just said matters as long as you stay above that threshhold or C) point out that I never made the claim that that was an exhaustive list of reasons I am not the same as a bundle of 32 cells. Decisions, decisions.

      5. Green Mountain Boy

        Life starts at conception. It is not a lump of cells it is a human being. What is hard to understand ? I do not care what qualifiyers you put on life. It is all sophistry.

        Either you value all innocent life or you value none. There is no inbetween. There is no “almost human”

        Like I said, I hope you never a victim of your rules.

      6. cory

        I doubt I’m going to be a pile of 32 cells anytime soon, so I don’t think I have to worry about anything I’ve said coming back to bite me.

      7. Amazona

        To distill the Lefty argument for selective murder to its most basic component: The Left has decided that it is the final arbiter on who may live and who must die, on what is and is not a worthwhile life or even a human life.

        The Left has decided to apply arbitrary criteria to life to determine its worth, in spite of the fact that once such criteria are established and approved, they can change to accommodate any new circumstance.

        If a criterion of acceptability is age, for example, the bar can be moved as seen necessary. It already has been. First it was the first trimester of pregnancy, then the second, then up till the moment of birth but before a breath was taken, then soon after birth if the original intent was to kill the baby anyway. We’ve gone from first trimester to fourth trimester in just a few years

        We have already seen examples of the health care system in the UK determining health care standards based on age—if a man is 85, is it ‘worth it’ to pay for expensive procedures? There is a formula used to make this kind of determination.

        So now the worth of human life is a formula, based on age, with nothing to keep the bar from moving to older children or younger adults.

        How about mental ability? We have seen societies which have decided that mental deficiencies disqualify people from the right to life, most recently in Nazi Germany. We are seeing unborn children killed because of in utero diagnoses of possible mental infirmity and we have seen physically healthy babies killed soon after birth for the same reason. Where will the bar be placed regarding mental capacity? On IQ? Worth to the State? Will it be an immovable criterion?

        Then there is the issue of physical ability. If we can kill off an infant, either before or after birth, because of a physical infirmity, why not move that bar around, too? Granny had a stroke? Too bad, bye bye Granny. Cousin Eddie came home from Afghanistan with brain damage and missing some limbs? What’s the difference between Cousin Eddie and his sister’s aborted infant with cerebal palsy? Just age, but we’ve already seen how flexible THAT criterion can be.

        And so on.

        The argument is that life is precious, life is sacred, and mankind has no business trying to say any one life is less valuable or in need of protection than any other. Abortion is entry-level eugenics. We are seeing infants butchered for being boys instead of girls, girls instead of boys, possibly having health problems, at any and every stage of pregnancy. We are seeing a disproportionate number of black babies killed before or soon after birth. A large portion of our society is actively working to desensitize us to these atrocities, defending them and attacking those who find them despicable.

        But what is next, when and if we get to the point of accepting this level of murder as justified?

      8. Cory

        Yeah, and then the imaginary slippery slope will lead us right on into just allowing murder on the streets and the destruction of humanity. Besides, conservatives are, as a rule, generally okay with killing people. Like, actual people with brains and sentience. Why aren’t you worried about a slippery where we’re going to start executing people for parking tickets? Oh, you only like living in make believe pretend land when you think it furthers your point?

      9. Amazona

        Cory, I notice that you can’t actually address what I said, but you have this compulsion to post no matter how little you have to say so you reverted to an old tactic of reductio ad absurdem or the feeble effort to make a point by exaggerating to the point of being ridiculous and then pretending that is relevant to anything.

        I am one of those who has come to the belief that some people voluntarily give up the right to life that is the birthright of humanity, through actions so heinous and inhuman that they place these people in a different category. They are not innocents, but people who have made the choice to act in inhuman ways.

        But I will happily trade. Stop butchering innocent babies and I will support ending the death penalty. OK?

        You sneer that this is an “imaginary slippery slope”. Do you deny that the age limit for abortions has changed? The whole justification for late term partial birth abortions was that it was OK to kill a fully formed child who was mature enough to survive outside the womb, if it had not yet drawn a breath. Now it is OK to deliver a full term baby and set it aside to die, no matter how strong or healthy it might be, if the intent of the gestational creature was to kill it and its birth was an accident. That’s a pretty big leap from first trimester only, and in a short period of time. “Imaginary” slippery slope?

        Your whole post is a silly, feeble effort to defend the indefensible, and an illustration of the Culture of Death that permeates the radical Left. You may preen over your odd ‘execution for parking tickets’ invention but all in all, you just made a lot of noise and slipped in an insult or two, but made no sense whatsoever.

        BTW, nice effort to smear a whole political philosophy, but as you clearly have no idea what “conservative” means in 21st Century American politics, all you do is illustrate, again, your toxic ignorance. To people like you, it seems to make sense to try to compare a political philosophy which has been directly responsible for the butchery of tens of millions—-not counting those killed in the womb—-with a few hundred deaths of hardened killers condemned by the rule of law for their vicious crimes, deaths with absolutely no political identity.

        Thanks for showing up and illustrating, so vividly, the combination of toxicity and ignorance that seems to mark the average Liberal mouthpiece in this country.

      10. David

        No reductio necessary, it was absurdum to start with. Your frothy rants are hard to respond to because you make so many wild points built on assumption.

        Here are just a few things:

        “The Left has decided that it is the final arbiter on who may live and who must die, on what is and is not a worthwhile life or even a human life.”

        What? The Left isn’t the group trying to limit access to abortion in life-threatening situations. Isn’t that making a judgment on who should live and who must die? I think the issue has a little more gray in it then you’re presenting here.

        “But I will happily trade. Stop butchering innocent babies and I will support ending the death penalty. OK?”

        First off, which poster here butchers babies? Second, why are you implying that a fetus is a baby? That itself is a very delicate and subtle issue that immensely affects the rest of the argument. You don’t get to just assume incredibly important and contested points and then call everyone else immoral for not accepting the point without argument.

        “We have already seen examples of the health care system in the UK determining health care standards based on age—if a man is 85, is it ‘worth it’ to pay for expensive procedures? There is a formula used to make this kind of determination.”

        This kind of formula has been used for ages in insurance calculations. Do we build a new highway or a train system? The number of human deaths plays into that calculation and there’s a number on every life. That’s the way economics works. I don’t know how the UK system works, so I can’t defend or condemn it in particular, but complaining that having a system at all in place to determine who receives healthcare is incredibly irresponsible. Healthcare is a limited resource and it has to be rationed whether we call it rationing or not. Some people (like the British) think that those decisions should be made collectively instead of by the “Free” Market. Those jerks…

        “We have seen societies which have decided that mental deficiencies disqualify people from the right to life, most recently in Nazi Germany.”

        Oh right, that’s the problem. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi. How could I forget?

        “I am one of those who has come to the belief that some people voluntarily give up the right to life that is the birthright of humanity, through actions so heinous and inhuman that they place these people in a different category. They are not innocents, but people who have made the choice to act in inhuman ways.”

        This assumes that every convict is actually guilty. There are plenty of exonerations via physical evidence that show this is not true.

        “BTW, nice effort to smear a whole political philosophy, but as you clearly have no idea what “conservative” means in 21st Century American politics, all you do is illustrate, again, your toxic ignorance. To people like you, it seems to make sense to try to compare a political philosophy which has been directly responsible for the butchery of tens of millions—-not counting those killed in the womb—-with a few hundred deaths of hardened killers condemned by the rule of law for their vicious crimes, deaths with absolutely no political identity.”

        Yes, please hold Cory accountable for Stalin’s actions. That makes a lot of sense. I’m sure you’ll respond to this with a diatribe about how I don’t understand the political philosophy I claim to adhere to, blah blah blah. Save it for someone who cares. Thanks.

        “Thanks for showing up and illustrating, so vividly, the combination of toxicity and ignorance that seems to mark the average Liberal mouthpiece in this country.”

        You’re welcome. I’m also available for children’s parties and Bar Mitzvahs.

      11. Cory

        Really, I come off sounding more pro-choice than I actually am. The reality is that as a guy, I am never going to have an abortion. I think a morning after pill is okay, and aborting a baby 9 months into a pregnancy isn’t, but I don’t personally have a solid basis to determine when between those two points it ceases being okay. Given that, I think outlawing third trimester abortions might be a good idea outside of life-threatening cases, but beyond that, I think it is reasonable to give the woman in question the power to decide the more difficult question of when the line is for them to abort, and that it would be ridiculous for me to try to make the decision for them.

        Now, if you can explain to me how that translates into any sort of slippery slope involving any decisions made about anybody after they have been born, I’d love to hear your rationale. Executing people for parking tickets seems ridiculous, but historically, people have repeatedly gone down the same death penalty slippery slope and ended up at ethnic cleansing, so all in all I think everything you are trying to pin on me is much more applicable to people supporting the death penalty. You’ve turned the human life into a formula with the bar for execution set at the point where someone has “[given] up the right to life that is the birthright of humanity”, and what’s to prevent you from sliding the point at which you do that on down to rape, then assault, then getting a parking ticket or being a heathen? The answer is that our culture would not permit it, of course, and that there would be a popular uprising if we started murdering people for parking in the wrong spot or being Jews.

        The problem with slippery slope arguments is usually that they try to ignore huge qualitative differences and try to put everything on the same quantitative scale. It’s easy to pretend that the determination on when it is okay to abort or execute a criminal can be boiled down to one big “value of a human life” slider that some government official can just grab and move around, but very few people are sitting around going “oh man, we’ve gotten the bar set to third trimester abortions, now let’s see if we can get it so that people can murder their toddlers!” as seems to be your intimation. The bottom line is that my slippery slope argument was ridiculous, but the whole point was to try to use it to demonstrate that yours was, too.

      12. Cory

        Also as an aside, I see you again are using Latin phrases without really knowing what they mean. Reductio ad absurdum is a valuable logical tool when trying to determine the validity of a hypothesis, and is not a dirty rhetorical tactic, like you seem to want to imply. And it is a stretch to claim I’ve even used it in this case, anyway.

        You really should quit using Latin to make yourself look smart if you don’t actually know what it means.

      13. cory

        Oh, you are totally right. I guess incorrectly using Latin phrases is the rhetorical tactic du jour around here.

      14. Amazona

        ““He didn’t say the clinic was itself illegal.”

        What he did say was clear—-and the clinic was legal, and those entering it to kill their babies had every reason to think their actions and those of the “doctors” would be legal.

        Despicable, but legal;.

        cory October 28, 2011 at 12:37 am #

        I don’t get the title. It sounds like these were not legal abortions, ergo discussing the safety of legal abortions in this context doesn’t really make sense.

      15. Amazona

        David, your shrill efforts to mount an attack on me are sadly lacking in anything but indignant outrage at having the reality of the pro-abortion mentality outlined so clearly. Nice collection of straw men, though.

        Take this old turkey of a psuedo-argument: The Left isn’t the group trying to limit access to abortion in life-threatening situations. Isn’t that making a judgment on who should live and who must die?

        1. No, the Left isn’t trying to limit access to abortion in any circumstance. Good call there, Davey.

        2. Every abortion is a life-threatening situation for the unborn child.

        3. The old whine about “the life of the mother” is overused, and vague. For example, it has been used to try to justify partial birth abortions, when the reality is that the particularly brutal procedure of a partial birth abortion is far more dangerous to the gestational creature intent on murdering her baby than a C-section would be, and is desired only based on the now-outdated concept that it is OK to kill a viable baby if it has not yet taken a breath.

        No one has tried to limit access to abortions in the very very few legitimate cases where the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the pregnant woman. There has merely been an effort to halt laws trying to force providers to participate in these procedures if their religious beliefs prohibit it.

        4. Not only was there no claim that any poster here has killed babies, there was not even the implication that this was so. By the same token, there was no hint that anyone on this blog has participated in capital punishment. Therefore, the entire statement was quite clearly a reference to the acts in general.

        The effort to discriminate among various technical terms for unborn children is really just proof of my point, which is that the pro-abortion crowd has decided to determine the value of human life depending on age.

        What is the difference between a zygote and an embryo, between an embryo and a fetus, between a fetus and a baby? Age. Nothing but the length of time which has elapsed since conception. At the time of conception, that entity possesses all of the DNA which identifies it as human life. From that point on, any quibbling about semantics, terminology, or definition is nothing more than an effort to make an arbitrary judgment about when on the spectrum of existence that human life deserves what protection.

        The Pro-Death crowd loves to babble on about sentience, awareness of pain, etc. But in fact none of this displaces the very real fact that this is a human life from the very beginning, and that any effort to break its value down according to subjective and often selfish criteria is just an effort to justify a desired goal.

      16. Amazona

        I particularly loved the shrill hysteria of “Oh right, that’s the problem. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi. How could I forget?”

        Wow. Talk about a wild leap from what was said to a wild-eyed squeal of misplaced outrage! Of course I never said any such thing, implied any such thing, or posted anything that could lead any intelligent being to believe I had. All I did was point out the very real fact that one of the most despised despots in all of human history did the same thing that is defended by the pro-abortionists, which was to kill people deemed mentally unfit to live, with the only difference being the number of days between conception and death.

        This is an ugly truth, which is why it must be addressed with such strident hysteria and falsification of what was really said.

        Evidently unwilling to give up this sense of breathless outrage, Davey goes on to claim, of those executed for crimes, “This assumes that every convict is actually guilty.”

        Balderdash. I said no such thing. However, as Davey seems to want to talk about capital punishment, or at least to hyperventilate about it, let me point out that, guilty or not, every single person executed for a crime has been put through a lengthy and exhaustive process, clearly outlined by law,, and objective in nature. In other words, those making the decision are not personally gaining from its implementation. To put it in simple terms even David might be able to understand, they have no dog in the hunt. They do not gain or benefit by the death of the convicted.

        However, the death of every single unborn child is decided by the person most likely to gain, or benefit, by that death. It is a selfish decision, made for selfish reasons. These children could be born and placed with loving families, but the gestational creatures who have conceived them have chosen to indulge their own personal needs, of convenience, rather than take responsibility for their actions.

      17. Amazona

        “Yes, please hold Cory accountable for Stalin’s actions. That makes a lot of sense. ”

        Actually, it would make no sense, and it also did not happen. What an utterly stupid thing to say.

        If you want to challenge my statement that Leftist governments have been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, why not do so? But don’t further embarrass yourself with such bizarrely stupid comments as this one.

        And BTW, the list of Leftist despots who have killed these tens of millions goes far beyond Stalin, as I am sure you know if you actually DO understand the political philosophy you support and defend, though you do lack the mental clarity and moral courage to admit that you “adhere” to it.

        ” Save it for someone who cares. ”

        And there we have a distillation of the troll attitude. They don’t care what they post, and they don’t care about fact, truth or reality.

      18. Amazona

        “Reductio ad absurdum is a valuable logical tool when trying to determine the validity of a hypothesis, and is not a dirty rhetorical tactic, like you seem to want to imply.”

        Put away the crystal ball and the mutterings about what I “seem to want to imply”. Did I say it, or didn’t I?

        As you will not answer this honestly, I will.

        I did not.

        Yes, this can be a valuable tool. It can also be used, or misused, as we see so often from the Left, as a feeble effort to mount an argument when there is nothing else to shore it up.

        A perfect example of this is the favorite of the anti-religionists, who love to claim that people of faith believe in “an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds” etc.

        You misstate something (what we call ‘lying’) and then you ridicule the ridiculous lie you have invented.

        As you did when you wrote “Why aren’t you worried about a slippery (sic) where we’re going to start executing people for parking tickets? ”

      19. David

        “Stop butchering innocent babies and I will support ending the death penalty.”

        The subject of the of the sentence is “you.” The post was directed at Cory Whether intentional or otherwise, you were insinuating that Cory kills babies.

        Beyond that point, TLDR. This is pointless. Have a nice day.

      20. Wallace

        Wow, well done, David–you got the rare five-in-a-row screech from Amazona. Her complete freakout indicates that you hit the nail squarely on the head.

      21. Amazona

        Too cute, Wally, yet so typical of you to duck in, post a meaningless sneer, and slink off, avoiding addressing anything that was actually said.

        Since one of the RRL whines about me is that I am too blunt, I find it amusing that now you have done a 180 and are whining about what you claim I hint, imply, and/or insinuate. Make up your minds, laddies, if that isn’t asking too much of uber-emotional snipers such as you. (And by the way, that is a PLURAL “you”, just to keep your tiny minds from exploding as you try to figure out how to twist that pronoun into another shrill defense.)

      22. Wallace

        You’re the one who screeched hysterically for five consecutive posts, Amazona, not me, and not David, though his simple and perfectly accurate statements are what set you off so tremendously. Like I said, he clearly hit the nail on the head, hence your hilarious freakout. Even you seen aware of that.

      23. cory

        “The Pro-Death crowd loves to babble on about sentience, awareness of pain, etc. But in fact none of this displaces the very real fact that this is a human life from the very beginning, and that any effort to break its value down according to subjective and often selfish criteria is just an effort to justify a desired goal.”

        Yeah, because claiming that a fertilized egg is a human life is not subjective at all. Pot, meet kettle.

        “Put away the crystal ball and the mutterings about what I “seem to want to imply”. Did I say it, or didn’t I?

        As you will not answer this honestly, I will.

        I did not.

        Yes, this can be a valuable tool. It can also be used, or misused, as we see so often from the Left, as a feeble effort to mount an argument when there is nothing else to shore it up.

        A perfect example of this is the favorite of the anti-religionists, who love to claim that people of faith believe in “an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds” etc.

        You misstate something (what we call ‘lying’) and then you ridicule the ridiculous lie you have invented.

        As you did when you wrote “Why aren’t you worried about a slippery (sic) where we’re going to start executing people for parking tickets?”

        Okay, no more crystal balls. You have no idea what that phrase means, and you continue to use it incorrectly. Congratulations, you really nailed me down on that one.

      24. cory

        Also, that the whole guilt by association thing really gets old. Christians killed a ton of people during the Crusades, tortured people during the Inquisition, and gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans. Should you be held accountable to their actions? Muslim theocracies in the Middle East are very socially conservative. Why can’t we just have a discussion about the topic at hand without trying to compare one another to mass murderers with every third breath?

      25. Amazona

        You boys seem to think you have made a point by whining about my responses, but you are just trying to ignore the fact that so many lies were packed into one or two posts it took a few of mine to address them all. What you are really hacked off about is that each and every one of your lies WAS addressed, and debunked.

        Ouch. That obviously stings so much you have to come back here and whine some more, now whimpering about the fact that someone took the time to deal with you.

        A fertilized egg is not human life? Well, not if it is a fertilized egg of another species. But when a human egg is fertilized, it is life, and it is human. At that point all you pro-death people have to quibble about is the amount of time that passes after conception, which is the point I already made. But thanks for backing it up.

        Christians killed a ton of people during the Crusades,

        Nice specific reference and oh so relevant. Care to try to tie in a war, in which combatants (for the most part) were killed —-on both sides—-with the murder of unborn children, or the slippery slope of determining which human lives are valuable and which are not based on personal gain?

        I didn’t think so.

        (Christians) tortured people during the Inquisition..

        …equally irrelevant, though a typical anti-religionist default position, and you anti-Christians do exaggerate the number of those so treated.

        . …. and gave smallpox blankets to Native Americans. (You sure about this? It’s been so thoroughly debunked so many times I surprised to see even the most shameless of RRL trolls trotting it out again. You must be pretty desperate.)

        Digging pretty deep to find something relevant, eh? Too bad it’s all silliness. None of this has the slightest thing to do with the position that it is OK to kill babies, OR with the historical fact that Leftists have a clear historical record of mass murders

        Should you be held accountable to their actions?

        You seem absolutely determined to carry on this pretense that I ever said anyone should be held accountable for what Stalin (or whoever you are bleating about now) did. Do try to get a grip. I didn’t say it, I didn’t imply it, I didn’t hint at it, and there was nothing in what I did say that could possibly be reasonably taken to mean that I did.

        Muslim theocracies in the Middle East are very socially conservative.

        Yeah. And what is your point? That “socially conservative” in Middle Eastern Muslim theocracies tends to equate with ritualistic abuse of women? Or what?

        This is a completely stupid comment. “Socially conservative”?? Wow, there’s a precise phrase so relevant to this topic. We know you have no clue as to the definition of political conservatism in 21st Century American politics, so you don’t need to keep reminding us. And that is, or at least should be, the only definition of “conservative” we need to bother with here.

        Why can’t we just have a discussion about the topic at hand without trying to compare one another to mass murderers with every third breath

        And here you stumble upon one of the things that make your posts, and those of your fellow travelers, so obtuse. NO ONE HAS COMPARED ANYONE HERE TO ANY MASS MURDERER.

        Let’s try that again. NO ONE HAS COMPARED ANYONE HERE TO ANY MASS MURDERER

        I made an accurate, and relevant, comment about the slippery slope of allowing people to judge the worth of human life based upon their own personal agendas and benefit. I made an accurate, and relevant, comment about the fact that some are now condoning the taking of human life based on criteria such as age and mental competence, as well as physical handicaps, and pointed out just one example of a society in which this kind of moral relativism was taken to a degree resulting in the murder of inconvenient people.

        I am terribly terribly sorry that you have chosen to defend and support a political system which has, historically, used mass murder to advance its goals. I realize that this might be unpleasant for you, yet it is obviously not unpleasant enough for you to rethink your allegiance.

        But your hypersensitivity to this ugly reality is annoying when it launches you into these hysterical tirades about the alleged sins of others, which have no bearing whatsoever upon the harsh reality that it is this same political philosophy which is so passionately supporting the ongoing murder of millions more.

        Yes, it is true that not all who support and defend abortion are on the Left. But it is also true that the Left is the political entity which is most stridently in favor of it. This does not mean that you, as a Lefty apologist and defender, have ever killed any human being of any age. It just means that you support and defend those who do.

      26. Wallace

        “so many lies were packed into one or two posts ”

        It seems that lying in order to falsely accuse other people of being liars is habitual with you. But considering your utter lack of self-awareness, that doesn’t really come as a surprise.

        Still this is one of the better freakouts you’ve had in a while. Keep it going!

      27. Cory

        I piss more human life into the toilet daily than somebody kills when they take a morning after pill. The question is not whether it is human life, it is whether it is a human life. You can make a value judgement as to what constitutes a human life, but don’t you dare play stupid semantics games with me and try to confuse the two. And quit pretending that your religiously-based judgement is somehow more objective than anybody else’s.

        And great, you only directly called on me to stop butchering babies and told me I defend a political philosophy directly responsible for killing millions. Is that a fair enough assessment of your posts so far? Fine. Christians killed a bunch of heathens in the Crusades. And yes, it was a war. So now it’s okay to go kill people as long as they defend themselves? What about the huge numbers of women and children killed in the name of Christianity during the invasions? Those all also get the thumbs up because their husbands and fathers fought back to try to prevent it from happening?

        The best thing is, you actually are a Christian, but I am neither a Nazi nor any sort of follower of Stalin. I don’t actually support a political philosophy that is responsible for either of their actions (or any other “communist” dictator you want to pretend represents any of my opinions), because their political philosophies are not really related to mine (I’ve never wanted to mass execute or starve any populace). So again, I find that all of your accusations are more readily applicable to you than they are to me. Which is to say not really at all, of course, but you’re the one that wants to waste a bunch of time frothing at the mouth about how the vague umbrella of liberalism is a mass murderer. (and you complain about me making non-specific accusations?)

        I’ve got a better trade than the one you proposed earlier: stop trying to compare my political philosophy to unrelated mass death’s caused by Stalin and I’ll stop trying to bring up activities by groups to which you belong that are equally unrelated to the topic at hand. Or, if you’re unwilling to make that trade, I’ll happily go on my way, There is only so long I can put up with juvenile attempts to change the subject into something it is not.

      28. Wallace

        “because their [Stalin's and Hitler's] political philosophies are not really related to mine”

        Here’s the thing: In Amazona’s phenomenally mixed-up world, their philosophies are related to yours because if you oppose conservatism at all, then you are, in her words, a “de facto socialist” whether you know it or not. Therefore *mumblemumblemumble* Adolph Joseph HitlerStalin! (Don’t get too hung up on the fact that Hitler wasn’t really a socialist, either–in her world, he was because shut up, that’s why.)

      29. tiredoflibbs

        Gee wally, there you go contradicting yourself again. Hitler wasn’t a socialist?

        Using YOUR David Duke logic: Hitler called himself a socialist in the National Socialist Party and his only political success came from that self-proclamation. So he called himself, something he wasn’t? – according to you that is not possible.

        But why should we expect for you to remain logical in your own arguments? Your tactics are to argue whatever suits you best, whether that is distortion, contradiction or outright lying – all of course have been proven in great detail and in quantity.

        You can’t have it both ways, wally, bodie, monty, jeffy or whatever.
        ————-

        I also love the way cory has to bring up incidents that happened over 700 years ago to stain the Catholic/Christian religion – the Crusades. That tired old talking point has been regurgitated time and again. It is only fitting that a drone such as cory would mindlessly repeat it.

        Pathetic drones who have no valid arguments to make in defense of their pathetic ideology – the only thing that matters in the end.

      30. Wallace

        “Hitler wasn’t a socialist?”

        Correct. But I know the right wing alterna-history says something different and that you’re going to stick with alterna-history because you are unable to deal with reality. So why don’t you just go ahead and do that, mkay? Let Amazona embarrass herself a little more before you go upstaging her.

      31. cory

        Tired,

        I agree that comparing your or Amazona’s values to those of crusaders from long ago is stupid. It is exactly as stupid as comparing my political philosophy to Stalin’s, and that’s the whole point. Value systems are complicated, individual frameworks for making ethical decisions. Which is exactly why claiming that Stalin starving Ukrainians has anything at all to do with a discussion on abortion rights is ridiculous. I’d love for the discussion to be about the merits of various positions on the ethicality of abortions and not this nonsense, but I am not the one came in here trying to compare people to Nazis.

      32. Cory

        On this particular, I’ve given a full accounting of my political philosophy. Feel free to scroll up to read it. If you are looking for me to hitch my wagon onto some particular candidate’s platform, you’re going to be disappointed, and I don’t care to write a multi-page essay on my overall political philosophy in the comments on a blog, so I’m not sure what you want me to say.

      33. Wallace

        “I’m not sure what you want me to say.”

        They want you to say that you’re an ardent socialist, even though you’re not. That’s what this whole gambit is about.

      34. David

        What’s wrong with being an ardent socialist? I hear Sweden’s pretty nice if you can stand the weather.

        I was also under the impression that at one point it was believed in the American tradition that truth emerged from robust debate not a single ideological foundation.

      35. tiredoflibbs

        “I’m not sure what you want me to say.”

        It’s a simple question, requiring a simple answer. No need for volumes of rhetoric or ideology, just answer the question.

        What you wrote above his hardly an answer. It is so full of exaggeration that one must question the logic of the response.

        And no, you do not need to “hitch your wagon” to a candidate – a simple answer will do.

        You keep avoiding requests with either exaggerated responses or avoiding an answer altogether.

        Try again.

      36. tiredoflibbs

        Thanks bodie, jeffy, wally for confirming the fact that you are contradicting yourself and/or just a plain liar.

        Again, according to you Duke is a Republican because a) he called himself one and b) as a Republican he had his only political success.

        Now when Hitler a) declared himself a Socialist and b) as a Socialist he had his only political success, you, once again and predictably, “forget and deny” everything you stated before. It is so easy to peg you being the mindless drone that you are.

        You have been caught once again. Thanks for playing you lost, get over it.

        Don’t bother trying to weasel out of this one. You hung yourself.

      37. Cory

        Fine, I’ll repeat myself. My philosophy is that I do not have the medical background to set a specific date where an abortion shouldn’t be okay anymore. It is fine with me at one cell and it isn’t okay at 9 months. Beyond that, I have no skin in the game or special knowledge of the situation, so i don’t have an opinion on where the line should be drawn exactly, and that’s totally okay, because not everybody has to have a strong opinion on everything.

      38. Wallace

        Yes, I’m aware of your alterna-history, tired, but like I said, this is Amazona’s time to embarrass herself. You’ve already proven (repeatedly and at length) that you’re fantastic at self-humiliation; can’t you let Amazona have her turn at it?

      39. tiredoflibbs

        Yes, I would expect no less from you jeffy, bodie, wally.

        Again, you dodge the accurate points I made against you and your twisted logic. The “alternate history” I posted was to show your contradictions only, nothing more. Of course, again, you distort to suit your needs regardless of what you posted before.

        But keep dodging and contradicting, that is what you are best at and which you are only capable.

        Thanks for playing.

      40. tiredoflibbs

        Gee cory, since you have a short attention span, I will repeat myself.

        What is your political philosophy – in general and not limited to the abortion subject?

        You compared our belief system to that of the Crusades, which is completely unrelated to abortion. And yet, you limit your explanations of your philosophy to that of abortion.

        Again, it is a simple answer to a simple question. Unlike bodie, wally, jeffy, I do not think you are willing to at least respond to challenges posed to you.

      41. Wallace

        “The “alternate history” I posted was to show your contradictions only, nothing more. ”

        Well, at least you’re admitting that you were just making stuff up in an ill-fated attempt to make a point. That’s a good first step. Now you just need to learn to not be so angered and terrified by simple, objective facts, such as the fact that David Duke is a Republican and not, as neocon claimed, a Democrat. I understand why you live in terror of facts–you’re almost always on the wrong side of them–but sooner or later, you’re going to have to learn how to cope, OK?

        Geez, between learning how to cope with reality and learning basic English, you’ve really got your work cut out for you. Best of luck with it.

      42. cory

        Okay, you actually are wasting my time and not asking a legitimate question, got it.

        If you were capable or interested in reading the entire discussion, you’d see that I only brought up the Crusades as a counterpoint to Amazona making claims about my beliefs and their relation to Hitler and Stalin. I would love to drop that whole line of discussion, because it is pretty worthless.

        It would also be ridiculous to try to write a full accounting of my ideology in this space. If you want some easy to digest label to apply to me so you can neatly stuff me into some box and preserve your world view, you are going to have to come up with it yourself.

      43. tiredoflibbs

        Thanks again bodie, jeffy, wally for reaffirming your tactic of evasion and your ability to continue to contradict yourself – not to mention your poor ability at reading comprehension. You continue to deny that Hitler was a socialist (even after applying your own logic – He declared himself a socialist, he ran as a socialist and scored his successes as a socialist – but predictably you deny your own “logic”)

        You have been caught in a lie again. No need to weasel out of it, you can’t. The “alternate history” you keep referring to has been proven here time and again and as usual you ignore basic facts.

        You lost again. You can’t rise above mindless drone.

        ——-

        Cory you admit that it was stupid to use the tired old talking point about the Crusades and equating it with today’s Catholics/Christians. And yet, you use it again as the good little drone that you are! No surprise there….

        You can’t have a discussion without reverting back to the tired old tactics you keep using. I asked a simple question and you continue to refuse to answer.

        No surprise there either. If you think you answered the question I asked then you are worse than drones like bodie, jeffy, wally.

        ——————-

        You two either need to get a hobby or a woman. You are in over your heads here and the need to return to basic animal instincts (eat sleep poop and reproduce since you keep failing at the intellectual stuff) keeps rearing its ugly head.

      44. Wallace

        “The “alternate history” you keep referring to has been proven”

        Oh, so the breakdown here is that you still haven’t learned the definition of the word “prove.” Gotcha. Well, you go make that your English lesson for the day, then work on learning how to cope with reality instead of getting angry at objective facts and fighting against them, then come back and give it a shot. There’s a lot of hard work ahead of you, as these are things you should’ve learned a long time ago, but you’re up to the task, aren’t you? You can overcome your massive, crippling deficiencies!

      45. cory

        How about this: if you can describe your entire political philosophy in the space of a comment on a blog, your opinions are entirely uninteresting to me because they are as well developed as those held by your average 10-year-old. Given that you think that I should be able to do so, my guess is that’s exactly where you stand, and I am therefore done talking to you. Welcome to the list of people I am going to completely ignore because they are incapable of adding any meaning to the conversation.

      46. tiredoflibbs

        ahhh, there goes wally, bodie, jeffy again redefining the argument and dreaming up problems – all due to his lack of comprehension and knowledge.

        Again, he dodges away from his silly argument that he has contradicted and lied about to try to redirect it all over again.

        What a pathetic drone!

        You were caught and now you are in serious damage control mode to make it appear that you are not the useful idiot you really are.

        Keep up the desperation, you prove our points and observations time and again.
        ——————-

        Cory, again, if you don’t want to answer a challenge just say so.

        It is really simple, but then again if you suffer the same deficiencies as wally, bodie, jeffy then there is no hope for you.

        It is really easy, unless you don’t know your philosophy. You just follow the dumbed down narrative, rhetoric and ideology constructed by others who dictate the philosophy of he day.

      47. Wallace

        So does this mean you aren’t up to the task of learning what the word “proved” means, tired? Just like you aren’t up to the task of learning what the words “everything” and “may” mean?

        Then you certainly aren’t up to the task of learning how to cope with cold, objective fact, such as the fact that David Duke is a Republican no matter how big a sobbing, foot-stomping, screaming tantrum you throw about it. Which means that I’m once again brutalizing the hell out of you simply by citing basic facts, and I swore I’d stop doing that no matter how much you begged me to. So if you want to continue this, you’re going to have to go get those English lessons you so desperately need, and you’re going to have to learn how to cope with factual information like an actual grown-up, OK? Good luck to you!

      48. tiredoflibbs

        jeffy/monty/bodie/wally whines: “you still haven’t learned the definition of the word “prove.””

        Oh, yeah, this coming from a “guy” who thinks “to prove” is to simply make a statement and regurgitate it over and over.

        As in this “Hitler wasn’t a socialist” discussion that we have had on more than one occasion. I and several others have posted references and sources proving that Hitler was a socialist. You on the other hand simply ignored all links and references and continue to regurgitate “he wasn’t a socialist”. You have shown no proof. And when asked for it, you state that you did and continue to fling your equivalent of mental poop hoping something will stick.

        And the coup-de-grace, I used your own tactics against you. Your “david duke was a republican” logic was used against you and in typical fashion, you ignored it, deflected from it and continue to regurgitate your statement as proof enough.

        It is time to change your name again, wally has been outed for a fool, a mindless drone, a useful idiot once again.

        Who will you claim this time?

      49. Wallace

        “a “guy” who thinks “to prove” is to simply make a statement and regurgitate it over and over. ”

        “As in this “Hitler wasn’t a socialist” discussion that we have had on more than one occasion. I and several others have posted references and sources proving that Hitler was a socialist.”

        Physician, heal thyself!

        Oh, I’m sorry, you probably don’t understand any of the above. You’re still grappling with extremely basic basic vocabulary. And it’s worth pointing out that all of this is still happening because you’re entirely unable to accept the simple, unmistakeable fact that David Duke is a Republican and not, as neocon claimed, a Democrat. Facts send you into a rage for some reason (hopefully you’ll figure out that reason during your efforts to learn how to cope with plain facts without throwing monumental hissy fits), and you still haven’t recovered from that one. When you do, let me know, mkay, kiddo? Until then, I’m sticking with my vow to not brutalize you by presenting you with plain, simple facts (you know…because you lack the intellectual and emotional faculties to deal with facts). It’s for your own good, tired. Best of luck to you!

      50. tiredoflibbs

        wally, simply changing the subject does not prove anything.

        You are still on that David Duke is a Republican topic? Physician heal thyself????

        For some reason, you can’t accept the cold simple fact that I said David Duke is a Republican now. I stated it the first day it came up. You missed that little detail due to your inability to comprehend simple sentences. Why is it so hard for you? Oh, wait, you feel the need to change aliases every few weeks, since you make a fool of yourself in the end. It is apparent you can’t stand the embarrassment and be the poster boy of failed government schools.

        But of course you need to feel secure in your “logic”, even though I used it against you to prove you wrong with the “Hitler wasn’t a Socialist!” discussion you keep ranting about, but not provide anything as sort of proof…. accept to regurgitate it over and over. You know your usual tactic….

        Okay, wally. You must be getting tired of this new “alias” since you have been revealed to be the fool that you are.

        Go ahead and fling more mental poop in the hope of something will still stick….. remember regurgitating a statement over and over will not make it true.

        Again, thanks for playing. You keep losing at “checkers”…. It is time you learn chess.

      51. Wallace

        “Physician heal thyself????”

        Like I said, I knew that would be way above your head. Maybe once you learn remedial vocabulary (you know–”prove,” “everything,” “may,” stuff like that), you can learn grammar, because yours is atrocious (as one would expect). Then you can take a shot at learning idioms. After that, finally, at long last, you can perhaps learn the basics of logic. But you need to crawl before you walk, tired. So you just go do your homework, mkay? Then we’ll talk.

      52. tiredoflibbs

        Awwww, there goes wally/monty/bodie/jeffy trying to make fact from fiction by regurgitating the same statement over and over.

        The constant deflection and dodging will not change the simple fact that you are plainly ignorant.

        Your have been caught in your own lies and contradiction. Your claims have been obliterated and you deflect on to newly invented ones.

        We all have come to realize that you cannot “heal” yourself because you don’t have the ability to see your constant mistakes and shortcomings.

        Give it up. You lost. Time to get a new alias.

      53. Wallace

        Sorry, tired, we’re done here. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough for one thread, so we’re now into “it’s cruel to continue making tired embarrass himself” territory. You go do your homework, then maybe we can pick it up again, OK, kiddo? Good luck!

      54. tiredoflibbs

        We are done here?

        Nope…. you have yet to start!!! And I passed the finish line long ago. You were still arguing the same stupid argument from days ago and arguing against a claim that I never made!!!

        You again demonstrate that repeating the same task over and over will not give you a different outcome.

        I guess you will be needing that new alias after all.

    4. tiredoflibbs

      cory, we know you are easily confused.

      Here is the short answer: One of the liberal dumbed down talking points is that if abortion is made illegal, then they would be performed in back alleys where they will become less safe. Therefore, for that reason, abortion needs to be kept legal.

      Ever been to a pro-abortion demonstration? You would see the occasional coat hanger poster. That is their depiction of an abortion procedure if it is made illegal.

      The title shows the irony of their argument. Now we know you have trouble with reading comprehension. My suggestion is reading this three or four times then have someone explain it to you before you post an uninformed and erroneous response.

      1. cory

        How does this show the irony of anything? Aren’t we right now still talking about people who died from illegal abortions, thus furthering their point and not yours? I don’t even think I subscribe to that particular argument for having abortion be legal, but come on.

      2. Amazona

        And here we have yet another Cory invention—–what we call ‘lying’. Now he is claiming this was an “illegal” abortion clinic. Really?

      3. David

        He didn’t say the clinic was itself illegal. He said what they were doing was illegal and as such has no bearing on the fact that certain kinds of abortions are legal.

        This is like pointing at Son of Sam and saying “this wouldn’t have happened if murder had been illegal.” Actually, it was illegal. Some people do bad things no matter what the law says.

      4. Cory

        The claim was that this was proof that legal abortions aren’t safe. It says in the very first sentence of the excerpt that the doctors had pleaded guilty to murder charges. Clearly what they did was not legal.

      5. Wallace

        “He didn’t say the clinic was itself illegal. He said what they were doing was illegal and as such has no bearing on the fact that certain kinds of abortions are legal.”

        I like how Amazona lied in order to falsely accuse somebody else of being a liar. Now that’s conservatism!

    5. J. R. Babcock

      Just a thought here, Cory; have you ever been grateful that your mom didn’t take one of those pills?

  3. js03

    The grand jury said that a clinic co-worker of Moton’s testified that a woman gave birth to a large baby at the clinic, delivering the child into a toilet. The jurors identified the newborn as “Baby D.”

    The jurors said the co-worker told them that the baby was moving and looked like it was swimming.

    “Moton reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck,” the grand jury said in its report.
    ___________________

    strange what they do under the cover of an abortion clinic….

    1. neocon1

      js03

      strange what they do under the cover of an abortion clinic….

      evil is always done in the dark.

      1. neocon1

        Be prepared for an all-out campaign by the left, throughout his pro-football career, to destroy and discredit Tim Tebow.

        Thus far, Tebow has done three things to infuriate the left and secure his name permanent residency on their excrement list.

        First, Tebow dodged being aborted and went public with his story.

        Second, Tebow won his first game in the NFL and publicly thanked Jesus for it. Dem dere is fightin’ words to the left!

        Third, without being intentionally political, Tebow’s life promotes conservatism.

      2. Wallace

        “discredit Tim Tebow”

        Nothing discredits Tim Tebow more than his own play. Did you see him yesterday? Pitiful.

        But no, his suckiness must be a liberal conspiracy. Of course.

      3. Amazona

        Those of us who are not raving anti-Christian bigots and who also follow football remember the early days of John Elway, whose early stats are nearly identical to those of Tebow.

        Of course Wally has to diss Tebow—Tebow is talented, has character and integrity, and is intelligent and has a great future. Wally is a sour, surly nothing whose only goal is to be as obnoxious as possible on a conservative blog. The Wallys of the world will always hate, resent and attack those whose very lives are a reproach to their own worthlessness.

      4. Wallace

        Perhaps Tebow does have a great future–he just doesn’t have one as an NFL quarterback.

        Keep crying about a “conspiracy,” though. It’s what you do best–cry. But you should stop pretending to know about football; that is not in your wheelhouse if you’re favorably comparing Tebow to Elway.

      5. neocon1

        walleye

        YUP

        Be prepared for an all-out campaign by the left, throughout his pro-football career, to destroy and discredit Tim Tebow.

      6. Wallace

        Awww, there there, neocon. Dry those tears. Just because your new favorite professional football player sucks at actually…you know…playing professional football is no reason to spend so much time crying.

      7. neocon1

        Yeah Riiiiiight !

        Tebow played quarterback for Nease High School in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida and was ranked among the top quarterback prospects in the nation as a high school senior.[2]

        He ultimately chose to attend the University of Florida. Tebow was a dual threat quarterback, adept at rushing and passing the football. As a college freshman, the Gators’ coaches largely used him as a change of pace to the team’s more traditional passing quarterback, Chris Leak.[3] Tebow contributed to the Gators’ 2006 college football season as a key back-up, helping the team win college football’s national championship game for the first time since 1996.

        During the 2007 season, Tebow was Florida’s starting quarterback and became the first college football player to both rush and pass for 20 or more touchdowns in a single season and the first college sophomore to win the Heisman Trophy.[4

        ] In addition to winning the Heisman Trophy, his 2007 performance earned him the Maxwell Award as the nation’s top football player, the Davey O’Brien Award as the nation’s best quarterback and the James E. Sullivan Award as the nation’s most outstanding amateur athlete in any sport. In 2008,

        Tebow led Florida to its second national championship in three years. He was named the offensive MVP of the national championship game.

      8. Amazona

        Wally, you are so blithely oblivious to relevance, it has to be intentional.

        Given your utter cluelessness about every other topic of your toxic sneers, there is no reason to suddenly ascribe the slightest knowledge of football to you. So your “opinion” on Tebow’s qualifications is as relevant as the other mental excrement you deposit here on such a regular basis.

        No “conspiracy” here, unless you count the mutterings of the voices in your head. If you’re going to invent things to snarl about, at least try to invent something relevant to what someone has actually SAID.

        Or are you still hung up on imagined comments, those hints, implications, innuendoes and other unsaid references that get you so wound up?

        John Elway’s early nickname in Denver was “throwaway”. I lived in Denver at the time, and we had a group that got together every Sunday to watch the Broncos. It was heartbreaking and frustrating to see this young college star, with so much potential, taking so long to realize it.

        But he did, and became one of football’s great quarterbacks.

        I know how deeply invested in hateful negativity you RRL trolls are—it seeps and oozes from every line you feel so compelled to post here— but you really ought to realize that you are identified as such, and everything you post is seen as such. All you ever post is negative and hateful, and now you find the compulsion to spread it to a young athlete.

        It has to suck to be you.

      9. Wallace

        “No “conspiracy” here”

        Really? Because neocon said this:

        “Be prepared for an all-out campaign by the left, throughout his pro-football career, to destroy and discredit Tim Tebow.”

        Good lord, you can’t go two seconds without bungling things up horribly. Sort of like Tim Tebow in the NFL. Keep up the whining! It really helps you!

      10. Amazona

        Oh, I see, Wally. I was using the actual DEFINITION of the word “conspiracy” while you were evidently depending on the infinitely variable Leftist Compendium of Convenient Distortions.

        So let’s go through this nice and slow, so you have at least a chance of keeping up, ‘K?

        1.
        Noun:
        1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
        2. The action of plotting or conspiring.
        Synonyms:
        plot – cabal – scheme – intrigue – collusion
        More info »Dictionary.com – Answers.com – Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary

        #
        conspiracy – definition of conspiracy by the Free Online Dictionary …
        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracyCached

        con·spir·a·cy (k n-spîr -s ). n. pl. con·spir·a·cies. 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act

        So you see, if people across the nation all happen to, say, vote for the same man for office, it is not a “conspiracy” but merely an act based upon a shared viewpoint.

        This is the same kind of thing that is likely to happen when people who don’t know each other, do not communicate, do not plot or plan, but merely share—-for example—-a hatred of people of faith decide to denigrate a man for whom faith is the core of his person.

        You guys are such a hoot. I wonder if you realize how entertaining your insanity is, albeit simultaneously annoying. For example, I didn’t even come close to “favorably comparing Tim Tebow to John Elway”. It is truly fascinating to see how even the simplest concepts get all twisted and muddled as they make their way through what seems to pass for your mind.

        So far the only comparisons are: Denver Bronco quarterbacks with great college careers and great potential; rocky starts as rookies in the Big Show; and targets of snarling attacks for not being superstars right out of the box.

        No ‘favorable’. No ‘unfavorable’. Do work a little on that reading comprehension thing, OK?

      11. Wallace

        Are you a native English speaker, Amazona? David has noticed your problem understanding common idioms, and now here you are proving my point while thinking you’re proving yours. This is a very tiredoflibbs-esque performance you’re putting on here, but if English isn’t your first language, I’ll cut you some slack.

        From your definition:

        “A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”

        What neocon alleges is afoot:

        “an all-out campaign by the left, throughout his pro-football career, to destroy and discredit Tim Tebow.”

        Tebow is playing very poorly, and neocon thinks it’s some sort of “campaign to discredit Tebow” for people to mention this or even notice it. Yes, it’s not the fact that he stinks out loud that makes people say that he stinks out loud, it’s a conspiracy to discredit him. It’s this “campaign” by “the left” that’s creating all those bad throws, turnovers, and extremely low QB ratings of Tebow’s. Of course it is. Just like pointing out that Tebow is playing very poorly means, in your own words, that people with “a hatred of people of faith decide to denigrate a man for whom faith is the core of his person.” (This from a person who always accuses “the left” of using a “crystal ball,” but hey, self-awareness has always been extremely elusive for you, hasn’t it, Amazona?)

        You really don’t have a single clue, do you?

      12. neocon1

        walleye

        very VICKish of you…..woof woof.

        your guy a dog killer, convicted prison thug who sucks

        Our guy a GOOD Christian, Heisman trophy winner,
        a rookie just beginning a good career behind a line that sucks = 7 sacks.

      13. neocon1

        walleye

        You really don’t have a single clue, do you?

        hilarious, absolutely, hilarious.

        I DIDNT say those words about Tebow, they were a QUOTE FROM an ARTICLE which I re posted.

        ROTFLMAO…..LOL X 10,000
        talk about Fn clueless and STUPID LOL LOL

  4. Pingback: Because Legal Abortions Are So ?Safe? ? Blogs For Victory | Abc 7 Weather

  5. Amazona

    I see the Wally-Cory alliance is busy these days. You know, guys, you are pretty transparent. Take your silly tactic of spewing lie after lie. If your lies are ignored, you claim this is proof they are true—after all, if they were lies, they would be rebutted, wouldn’t they? But when they are addressed, you try to spin the rebuttal as hysterical shrieking, etc. and protest the number of words used to do so.

    It’s a tired old tactic, but evidently one you find irresistible.

    I do not rebut your silliness because I think the truth matters to you. You make it clear, in every post, that truth is completely irrelevant to you, and that your sole motivation is mindless attacking of what you seem to think is conservatism. But people read this blog who do not post, and I think it’s important to present alternatives to your insanity, your toxicity, and your out-and-out lies, rather than simply allowing them to lie there, steaming and odorous, without pointing out their falseness.

    Some of your stupidity doesn’t need to be pointed out. So Cory “pisses more human life into the toilet daily than somebody kills when they take a morning after pill…” Hmmm. If someone truly believes that waste material from the human body is the same as the human life created by conception, the moral vacuum of such a belief speaks for itself. It does, however, illustrate the contempt for some stages and types of human life felt by the rabidly radical Left. Comparing a human life created by conception with urine is about as clear an example of this contempt as I can imagine.

    Remember all the indignant squealing about how I allegedly was trying to “hold Cory responsible for the acts of Stalin”? Well, let’s take a look at what I actually DID say, OK?

    To people like you, it seems to make sense to try to compare a political philosophy which has been directly responsible for the butchery of tens of millions—-not counting those killed in the womb—-with a few hundred deaths of hardened killers condemned by the rule of law for their vicious crimes, deaths with absolutely no political identity.

    Right. Not a word, not even one of the RRL’s beloved implications, of holding anyone responsible for anything. I pointed out that the RRL types, like Bodie/Wally and Cory, try to spin a legal process such as capital punishment into a comparison to politically motivated genocide. Guess that word “compare” was too inconvenient to consider.

    But thanks for pointing out, yet again, the hypersensitivity of the RRL to any mention of the bloody and sordid history of the political movement you support and defend, even if you do lack the moral courage or the intellectual integrity to admit to it. Boy, even the most casual and indirect reference to these historical events gets you all wound up and defensive, which of course in your case means offensive to the max.

    And Bodie, even under this new name, simply calling people liars is totally ineffective if in fact what they said was not a lie. All it does, all it ever has done, is point out that you are a vicious little creature whose identity is deeply invested in calling other people names. We do notice that under any name, you are equally incapable of posting anything that is not just a mindless personal attack. Didn’t you already get axed for posting nothing but attacks?

    1. Wallace

      “Take your silly tactic of spewing lie after lie.”

      Take the silly tactic of spewing lie after lie away from you? I don’t think that’s humanly possible.

    2. Cory

      “Some of your stupidity doesn’t need to be pointed out. So Cory “pisses more human life into the toilet daily than somebody kills when they take a morning after pill…” Hmmm. If someone truly believes that waste material from the human body is the same as the human life created by conception, the moral vacuum of such a belief speaks for itself. It does, however, illustrate the contempt for some stages and types of human life felt by the rabidly radical Left. Comparing a human life created by conception with urine is about as clear an example of this contempt as I can imagine.”

      Professing moral outrage is a pretty clever attempt at avoiding the actual intent of my post, but the bottom line is that your proposed line of reasoning for why a fertilized egg is a human life was an explanation that is also true of bits of tissue in my urine. If you don’t like it, come up with a better explanation as to why it is a human life.

      You can couch it however you want, but the only thing you’ll be able to come up with is religious doctrine. That’s all well and good, but the fact that I am not willing to substitute your religious beliefs for a scientific rational does not make me morally bankrupt.

      You seem to like to accuse people of lying a lot. Please quote anyplace in this thread where I have lied and explain to me why it is a lie.

Comments are closed.