As riveting as this all is, think it's getting wildly off-topic. Might wanna steer back to the OP and keep the abortion stuff for abortion threads. I know it's related due to this being about PP, but probably shouldn't run the risk.
Also, O'Reilly knows full well what he's doing, imo. I doubt he believes half of the shit he peddles; he just does it because it sells well.
Originally posted by -Pr-
As riveting as this all is, think it's getting wildly off-topic. Might wanna steer back to the OP and keep the abortion stuff for abortion threads. I know it's related due to this being about PP, but probably shouldn't run the risk.Also, O'Reilly knows full well what he's doing, imo. I doubt he believes half of the shit he peddles; he just does it because it sells well.
Ok then. Will back off and do other stuff for now. I need a break from the GDF, anyway. See you guys in a week or 2. 😛
/deepbreath
Originally posted by Nibedicus
The fact that you agree with the horrible logic of that statement is actually kinda disappointing.
👆
It's also insulting how he thinks caring about the lives of unborn children is somehow a "skewed morality". LOL. Pr, do you feel the same say way about someone "poking their noses into other's lives" if it was discovred that they abused their children or they were running some kind of illegal operation like drug smuggling or planning to commit an act of terrorism? Is having a suspicion of someone doing any of those things and taking action like informing the authorities having a "skewed morality" in your opinion? I never thought I 'd see the day when someone accused people who think it's wrong to deny an innocent child the right to live of having a "skewed morality". I mean I know that libs here in the U.S. have a cold heart and don't give a shit about them but it's sad to see that others around the world feel the same way.
Oh, and yeah PR, O'Reilly, like all the rest of us conservatives actually believe in what we say and fight for. It's liberals that you should be questioning the integrity of with "Do you really believe in the BS you're peddling" considering some of the wacko shit they support. 👆
Like global warming being the greatest threat to humanity. LMFAO. How could someone actually "believe that shit their peddling"? I know liberals aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box but surely they can't be that dumb... Well, actually I take that back. Anyone stupid enough to back Hillary is capable of any kind of foolishness.
Originally posted by Star428
👆It's also insulting how he thinks caring about the lives of unborn children is somehow a "skewed morality". LOL. Pr, do you feel the same say way about someone "poking their noses into other's lives" if it was discovred that they abused their children or they were running some kind of illegal operation like drug smuggling or planning to commit an act of terrorism? Is having a suspicion of someone doing any of those things and taking action like informing the authorities having a "skewed morality" in your opinion? I never thought I 'd see the day when someone accused people who think it's wrong to deny an innocent child the right to live of having a "skewed morality". I mean I know that libs here in the U.S. have a cold heart and don't give a shit about them but it's sad to see that others around the world feel the same way.
Oh, and yeah PR, O'Reilly, like all the rest of us conservatives actually believe in what we say and fight for. It's liberals that you should be questioning the integrity of with "Do you really believe in the BS you're peddling" considering some of the wacko shit they support. 👆
Like global warming being the greatest threat to humanity. LMFAO. How could someone actually "believe that shit their peddling"? I know liberals aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the box but surely they can't be that dumb... Well, actually I take that back. Anyone stupid enough to back Hillary is capable of any kind of foolishness.
Don't use bad examples, please. Wanting to control what a woman does with her body is vastly different from wanting to make sure there isn't a meth lab in the apartment downstairs.
Again, confusing your own opinion for undeniable fact. It doesn't always work well.
Am I a liberal? What does that even mean?
And no, I'm pretty sure O'Reilly just knows his audience, tbh. I'd be very surprised if he really thought the things he says.
and again, this is going off topic. >.>
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) You are well within your rights to make absurd (albeit offensive and hyporcitical) comments, sure. Just as I am within my rights to call it out for being absurd (as well as offensive and hypocritical).
Ok, PR's been told to stop getting off-topic, so I'll just say none of that was meant to be absurd, but rather what I view as the logical extension of the 'potential' argument, and I'll do a quick wrap-up and hit just a few points. If one argues based on potential, the fact that potential-neutral scenarios or even potential-positive ones don't require even unlikely circumstances, puts a major dent in the use of the potential argument to push for a ban.
4) You claim that potential is irrelevant/unimportant in one argument for right of life and claim that it is for another.
Basically what I'm doing is, "Here's one way of viewing it, and the consequences of that are blah blah blah. Here's another way, and the consequences of that are blah blah blah." Either way, the standards are applied consistently, just which standards are being applied is different.
And one is always allowed to try and figure out the consequences of an argument.
Just because someone doesn't believe in an argument doesn't mean they can't argue it- heck, wouldn't that ask anyone to not argue the consequences of any argument they don't agree with?
I don't believe in the potential argument, and explaining what I see as the natural consequences of it is one part of *why* I don't believe in it, thus explaining it is part of explaining what I do and don't believe.
Originally posted by Q99
No, you said we were getting off topic, so I decided you were right and wanted to stop digressing, but even so failed to restrain myself from writing more.
Ah okay. I don't actually mod this board, but I could see it getting to a point where a global would come in and shut this down, and I think PP does deserve to be talked about, so I was trying to get in ahead of the curve.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Do you honestly believe a determined individual can't get their hands on guns if the laws change ?
Not everyone who uses a gun to kill was some determined individual who was dead set on getting a gun. Some people would be determined, others would be deterred. It's not meant to stop everything.
There are some people who maybe didn't have to try hard to get a gun and maybe they didn't get it for a specific purpose, but then they find themselves in a situation using it on innocent people.
It won't stop everything, but it would stop some people, which is better then stopping zero. It would probably do more then merely having a sign declaring a place a "gun free" zone would do.
After the accusations from liberals that the political views of the right was a direct cause of the attack on PP by a crazy person, Megyn Kelly PWNs the left by exposing their "selective logic and hypocrisy" in this minute or so long video:
Planned Parenthood Attack Suspect: "I Am Guilty"
Robert Lewis Dear, the suspect in the Nov. 27 attack at Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, yelled in court on Wednesday that he is guilty.
“I am guilty there will be no trial. I am a warrior for the babies,” he said in an outburst in El Paso County District Court first reported by CBS4 reporter Rick Sallinger.
Soon afterwards he stated “You’ll never know the amount of blood I saw in that place.”
The outburst came as lawyers were starting to discuss a motion to allow a camera in the courtroom.
Dear continued with the outbursts, “Seal the truth, kill the babies, that’s what Planned Parenthood does.”
The hearing on Wednesday was scheduled to be a formal filing of the 179 charges against Dear.
Prosecutors announced in the hearing that they will be filing 179 counts against Dear, including murder.
Dear also said “This is my life” and “I will not meet with him again” referring to his attorney, Daniel King.
King represented Aurora theater gunman James Holmes earlier this year.
Three people were killed and nine others were wounded in the attack on Planned Parenthood.
The three people who were killed in the attack were Ke’Arre Stewart, Jennifer Markovsky and Garrett Swasey. Swasey was a campus police officer for the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs.
Who's more crazy, him or the radical jihadists that killed the people in Californai?
Scary to wonder. Since he clearly looked deranged.
Those devout Muslims were pretty sain until the end.
I guess the more devout you become the more radical.
So this brings in mental health in the Islamic Religion because clearly they are not thinking straight, and or, the faith which is almost not a faith anymore its a ideology is thus crazy and deranged..
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Who's more crazy, him or the radical jihadists that killed the people in Californai?Scary to wonder. Since he clearly looked deranged.
Those devout Muslims were pretty sain until the end.
I guess the more devout you become the more radical.
So this brings in mental health in the Islamic Religion because clearly they are not thinking straight, and or, the faith which is almost not a faith anymore its a ideology is thus crazy and deranged..
You are right, it is scary that we have to wonder whether the radical teachings that ISIS follows or the radical teachings that Republican candidates preach are more dangerous to American citizens. We all agree ISIS is an awful and dangerous enemy, but that there is domestic radical terrorism partly caused by many of followers of a mainstream party is worrying, since they operate from within the country.
It's scary and frustrating. And that the media supports that kind of rhetoric is disgusting.
I see Bardock is continuing to troll with his anti-Republican comments. Probably best just to ignore him at this point. I don't think he actually believes any of the ridiculous shit he's saying about Republicans/people on the right. He's just trying to get a rise out of those of us who are Republican voters. Fortunately, I've learned just to chuckle at his non-sense, ignore it, and move on.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
There is no right wing extremism terrorist group. If you going to keep making things up I will report you.
There are many right wing extremists, white supremacists and nationalists operating in the United States. Threatening to report me does not make this any less factual.
Originally posted by Star428
I see Bardock is continuing to troll with his anti-Republican comments. Probably best just to ignore him at this point. I don't think he actually believes any of the ridiculous shit he's saying about Republicans/people on the right. He's just trying to get a rise out of those of us who are Republican voters. Fortunately, I've learned just to chuckle at his non-sense, ignore it, and move on.
It's by no means all Republicans. There is however a group within Republicans that support these radical and extremist ideas and thoughts. I mean there is a well known split in the Republican party between the moderates and the extremists (partly collected under the "Tea Party" banner).
I don't think Republicans are all terrible. But there is a lot of ideology that is extremely destructive, divisive and also very violent, that gets perpetrated by certain Republican leaders and that some of the Republican base eat up.