the proud handiwork of Godless liberals........

catamount man · Post by **catamount man** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:18 pm

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Abor ... t.cfm?ID=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."

God bless Eric Rudolph!!!!!!!!

polsongrizz · Post by **polsongrizz** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:36 pm

Your mother really missed the mark with that coat hanger, too bad you self righteous POS.

catamount man · Post by **catamount man** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:14 pm

unfortunately for you, the best part of you ran down your mother's cheeks. And not the ass kind either.

Post by **Vidav** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:27 pm

Bronco · Post by **Bronco** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:56 pm

A majority of Catholics voted for this failed president and hopefully like many others have now wised up

Military Orders Catholic Chaplains Not To Read Letter From Bishops Criticizing Obama Administration Over Health Insurance Law…

The emerging conflict between the Catholic Church and the Obama administration may have a new front: in the U.S. military itself.

The Catholic Church is fighting mad about an HHS ruling that would have them buy insurance for things they consider sinful–contraception, sterilization and abortion.

All the bishops in the country sent out a letter to be read in their parishes promising that the Church “cannot-and will not-comply with this unjust law.”

Even Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who is in charge of Catholic military chaplains sent out the same letter.
But after he did, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains sent out another communication forbidding Catholic priests to read the letter, in part because it seemed to encourage civil disobedience, and could be read as seditious against the Commander-in-Chief.

More than one Catholic chaplain who spoke to us off the record confirmed that many chaplains disobeyed this instruction and read the letter anyway.

∞∞∞ · Post by **∞∞∞** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:12 pm

catamount man wrote:Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."

Fine, apply it to abortion, but...

...why do you praise soldiers then? Or like politicians who take us to war? They're willingly choosing a path that's meant to shed blood, right? If it's against God's will to kill, it seems like you're selectively choosing when to seperate church and state to fit your agenda. So people who have an abortion? Not ok? People who choose to fight? Ok?

ps. I've got nothing against soldiers if it came out that way. Just trying to make a point to catamount here.

Post by **Vidav** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:15 pm

∞∞∞ wrote:
catamount man wrote:Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."
Fine, apply it to abortion, but...

...why do you praise soldiers then? Or like politicians who take us to war? They're willingly choosing a path that's meant to shed blood, right? If it's against God's will to kill, it seems like you're selectively choosing when to seperate church and state to fit your agenda. So people who have an abortion? Not ok? People who choose to fight? Ok?

ps. I've got nothing against soldiers if it came out that way. Just trying to make a point to catamount here.

You can't make points to catamount. He is batshit crazy.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:29 pm

∞∞∞ wrote:
catamount man wrote:Genesis 9:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."
Fine, apply it to abortion, but...

...why do you praise soldiers then? Or like politicians who take us to war? They're willingly choosing a path that's meant to shed blood, right? If it's against God's will to kill, it seems like you're selectively choosing when to seperate church and state to fit your agenda. So people who have an abortion? Not ok? People who choose to fight? Ok?

ps. I've got nothing against soldiers if it came out that way. Just trying to make a point to catamount here.

They've got a fetus fetish.......once they hit the fresh air and sunshine, they're ready to throw them out with the bath water.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:36 pm

Anatomy of a "Pro-Lifer":

1. Save the fetus.......fvck the mother.
2. Once born........cut all welfare and services. Get a job mother! Baby who?
3. Liberal good-for-nothing unwed mothers and their kids.
4. Cut education.......why should we have to pay for all of these kids?
5. No sex education......we don't want them to know how babies are made.
6. Teen sex = conception. No abortion.......give the baby up for adoption. No gays can adopt though!
7. Baby is born.
8. Wash.....rinse....repeat.

Post by **Ibanez** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:39 am

mainejeff wrote:Anatomy of a "Pro-Lifer":

1. Save the fetus.......fvck the mother.
2. Once born........cut all welfare and services. Get a job mother! Baby who?
3. Liberal good-for-nothing unwed mothers and their kids.
4. Cut education.......why should we have to pay for all of these kids?
5. No sex education......we don't want them to know how babies are made.
6. Teen sex = conception. No abortion.......give the baby up for adoption. No gays can adopt though!
7. Baby is born.
8. Wash.....rinse....repeat.

one size doesn't fit all.

Post by **kalm** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:59 am

Did Eric Rudolph shed blood?

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 2:39 pm

Ibanez wrote:
mainejeff wrote:Anatomy of a "Pro-Lifer":

1. Save the fetus.......fvck the mother.
2. Once born........cut all welfare and services. Get a job mother! Baby who?
3. Liberal good-for-nothing unwed mothers and their kids.
4. Cut education.......why should we have to pay for all of these kids?
5. No sex education......we don't want them to know how babies are made.
6. Teen sex = conception. No abortion.......give the baby up for adoption. No gays can adopt though!
7. Baby is born.
8. Wash.....rinse....repeat.
one size doesn't fit all.

One size fits many.......Conservatives like to talk the talk.......but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they make a bank deposit instead.

Post by **dbackjon** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:23 pm

Yup - very proud of it

citdog · Post by **citdog** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:41 pm

dbackjon wrote:

Yup - very proud of it

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:11 pm

citdog wrote:
dbackjon wrote:

Yup - very proud of it

Get the fvck out then.

citdog · Post by **citdog** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:22 pm

mainejeff wrote:
citdog wrote:

Get the fvck out then.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:36 pm

It could happen again! (hopefully).

MSUDuo · Post by **MSUDuo** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 4:50 pm

mainejeff wrote:
Ibanez wrote: one size doesn't fit all.
One size fits many.......Conservatives like to talk the talk.......but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they make a bank deposit instead.

Your suggestion would be what then? I think we can all agree that children born into poverty and then kept in poverty is not the best thing going for this country.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

Post by **Ivytalk** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:21 pm

mainejeff wrote:It could happen again! (hopefully).

Yeah, Jeff, and send you to a little State of Depravity all your own.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:13 pm

mainejeff wrote:Anatomy of a "Pro-Lifer":

1. Save the fetus.......fvck the mother.
2. Once born........cut all welfare and services. Get a job mother! Baby who?
3. Liberal good-for-nothing unwed mothers and their kids.
4. Cut education.......why should we have to pay for all of these kids?
5. No sex education......we don't want them to know how babies are made.
6. Teen sex = conception. No abortion.......give the baby up for adoption. No gays can adopt though!
7. Baby is born.
8. Wash.....rinse....repeat.

It's not "fvck the mother." It's that there are two individuals involved. Unless it is a rare situation in which it is necessary to kill the fetus in order to save the life of the mother, you're talking about weighing killing one individual vs. something like mental stress on the part of the other. In that type of situation, it's is perfectly reasonable to choose inflicting mental stress on one individual in order to avoid killing another individual.

As far as the other stuff: Sex education could be handled by taking a general animal sexuality approach. It is quite possible to inform children with respect to how babies are made as well as how all dioecious species reproduce so that they understand the potential outcomes of their actions without doing some of the things fundamentalist Christians object to. Of course it would also be nice to let them know that...for example...condoms only reduce the risk by a factor of about 10 in practice and do not eliminate it. Don't be telling them that condoms ensure that no pregnancy and/or venereal disease transmission will occur.

And it is true that government should not be doing a lot of the stuff it's doing (like welfare). There is a difference between opting not to force some people to take care of other people and allowing some people to engage in direct, fatal attacks upon other individuals. There is nothing at all inconsistent about saying that you are against allowing direct fatal attacks by one indiviual upon another and at the same time that you are opposed to having government force one person to help another.

The shoe can better be put on the other foot. Liberals have all this flowery stuff about helping children with all these programs yet they are downright enthusiastic about maintaining a policy that lets a mother kill her own progeny as a matter of choice regardless of the reason. There is a lot more basis for arguing that THAT is inconsistent than there is for arguing that it's inconsistent to be opposed to current policy on abortion while also being opposed to things like welfare.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:13 pm

MSUDuo wrote:
mainejeff wrote:
One size fits many.......Conservatives like to talk the talk.......but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they make a bank deposit instead.

Your suggestion would be what then? I think we can all agree that children born into poverty and then kept in poverty is not the best thing going for this country.

"Working welfare" and ban on financial help for those that are on welfare and still have more babies is a start. People should have to work for the money that they receive from the government. I don't care if it is stuffing envelopes or cleaning streets.

mainejeff · Post by **mainejeff** » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:13 pm

Ivytalk wrote:
mainejeff wrote:It could happen again! (hopefully).
Yeah, Jeff, and send you to a little State of Depravity all your own.

Post by **kalm** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:20 am

mainejeff wrote:
MSUDuo wrote:
Your suggestion would be what then? I think we can all agree that children born into poverty and then kept in poverty is not the best thing going for this country.

"Working welfare" and ban on financial help for those that are on welfare and still have more babies is a start. People should have to work for the money that they receive from the government. I don't care if it is stuffing envelopes or cleaning streets.

This. Workfare.

polsongrizz · Post by **polsongrizz** » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:53 pm

catamount man wrote:unfortunately for you, the best part of you ran down your mother's cheeks. And not the ass kind either.

Sorry I am late getting back to you, but WTF...

are you F U C K I N G kidding me? What are you 14 Yo?

Its no wonder you have problems getting rid of yourself.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums