Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've made an awful lot of assumptions about me based on one post.
Pot, meet kettle.
Where did I say, " anyone who is prolife must love W," or any of the other assumptions you are making about me? Get off your high-horse, stop doing what you are accusing others of, and no need to be so defensive. Sheesh.
I made a lot of assumptions? How so? You ask prolifers to look at gruesome pictures, then say look what your prolife president did? I think your point is pretty clear -- to be prolife is to be a bush supporter, an Iraq war supporter and essentially a hypocrit. I mean, that was what your point was, wasn't it? That to be prolife is to be a hypocrit?
Pot meet kettle? No son, you got called out on having a weak argument based on tired stereotypes, thats all.
Only an absolute imbecile, jackass, or both, assumes that Pro-lifers automatically supported the war in Iraq.
If man X holds opinion A on issue Z, how do you draw a conclusion that he must hold opinion B on issue Y? I'm not seeing the correlation.
What I do see is some idiot trolling, who cannot come up with an argument against the pro-life stance, so he tries to make a correlation where none exists by generalizing a whole class of people.
Once again, how does Pro-life = pro-war? Two separate issues.
Did you bother reading and comprehending the OP? He was talking about the pro-life President being also pro-war (hence inconsistent). He was not talking about all pro-lifers. Here's what he said:
Quote:
You want to see what your "Pro-Life" President did to thousands and thousands of people:
Bush supporters really do not give a rat's butt and are only programmed to repeat "Bush kept us safe." A totally idiotic response when asked what that moron has done for this country. He did not keep us safe as 9/11 happened on his watch and Iraq and Saddam had zero to do with 9/11. I am sick and tired of repeating that because if they do not get it by now, it only proves what morons they are and how incapable they are of any intellignet ratinonale. 9/11 happened while Bush, the imposter, was pretending to be a POTUS. He obeyed Osama bin Laden's demands and that is why we have not been attacked on American soil. We had a criminal administration for eight stinking years and these nitwits continue to defend and praise this jerk. I voted for the turd, but c'mom... once the truth of what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and their cronies were doing became so obvious I cursed the day I voted him in. We were lied to, robbed and one would have to be a ****** to think otherwise.
Really? What do you mean? Not being snarky, this is just something I haven't heard about......
The OP referred to Bush as the pro-lifer, which Bush claims to be.
Please, he was trying to lump all prolifers in with bush and the iraq war. It was a very ineffective way of trying to 'out' prolifers as hypocrits.....it didn't work.
Please, he was trying to lump all prolifers in with bush and the iraq war. It was a very ineffective way of trying to 'out' prolifers as hypocrits.....it didn't work.
But do you deny that there are many pro-lifers out there who also are pro-war?
. He did not keep us safe as 9/11 happened on his watch and Iraq and Saddam had zero to do with 9/11. I am sick and tired of repeating that because if they do not get it by now, it only proves what morons they are and how incapable they are of any intellignet ratinonale. 9/11 happened while Bush, the imposter, was pretending to be a POTUS. .
So, the fact that we were vulnerable to attack had nothing to do with the fact that the PREVIOUS president decimated the intelligence & defense capabilities of our country, right? It was W's fault that all the silly restrictions on sharing information between the various agencies & organizations were put in place years before he got elected, right? President Bush & his cabinet were the ones who refused to even respond to the offer from Sudan to capture bin Ladin & provide info on his network, right? (Check this article from the LA Times, 12/5/2001.)
And have we been hit again, on American spoil, or on the scale of that attack? No, we have not. Do we have assertions from MANY sources, that our efforts have thwarted many attmepts? Yes we do. (Yes, I know it's all but impossible to prove that you PREVENTED something from happening. But those in the know claim we have.)
You may think President Bush did a poor job, and I won't argue against that. But please, fault him with the stuff that he actually did wrong, instead of putting the mistakes & misdeeds of his predecesor on him.
Please, he was trying to lump all prolifers in with bush and the iraq war. It was a very ineffective way of trying to 'out' prolifers as hypocrits.....it didn't work.
which lumped pro choicers into a group that approves throwing a live baby into a plastic bag and into the trash.
There are millions of pro-lifers in America who supported Bush and supported the Iraq War. They posted on this forum and others frequently in the run-up and since. Some have changed their stance with the benefit of hind-sight. Others still stand behind the war.
Of course this doesn't mean that every "Pro-Life" person supported the war or Bush, but I would put good money that most did.
But do you deny that there are many pro-lifers out there who also are pro-war?
I am sure that there are prolifers who are pro war because most people are not 100% anything all the time. I disagree with the Iraq war, and the Vietnam War but I do agree with our involvement with WWII. Does that make me a hypocrit? No. Life is far more complex then that, as are people.
Now, if you want to talk about why the republican party is able to draw prolifers to it then that would be a great discussion. The OP was doing a cheap trick to label all prolifers with the same hypocritical brush.
So, the fact that we were vulnerable to attack had nothing to do with the fact that the PREVIOUS president decimated the intelligence & defense capabilities of our country, right? It was W's fault that all the silly restrictions on sharing information between the various agencies & organizations were put in place years before he got elected, right? President Bush & his cabinet were the ones who refused to even respond to the offer from Sudan to capture bin Ladin & provide info on his network, right? (Check this article from the LA Times, 12/5/2001.)
And have we been hit again, on American spoil, or on the scale of that attack? No, we have not. Do we have assertions from MANY sources, that our efforts have thwarted many attmepts? Yes we do. (Yes, I know it's all but impossible to prove that you PREVENTED something from happening. But those in the know claim we have.)
You may think President Bush did a poor job, and I won't argue against that. But please, fault him with the stuff that he actually did wrong, instead of putting the mistakes & misdeeds of his predecesor on him.
Clinton told the 9/11 panel he thought his order to kill bin Laden was unmistakably clear. After all, the Justice Department had ruled that the U.S. government's ban on assassinations didn't apply to bin Laden because he was a military target. Even the commission's chairman is convinced that Clinton wanted to kill bin Laden and that the CIA balked over the slightest ambiguities in his orders: "Some of the people who had to carry that out were part of an agency that had been accused of assassinations in Central America not too long before and who had gotten in deep trouble for that," says Kean. "What [they] wanted [was] all the t's crossed and all the i's dotted." The most memorable part of Clinton's testimony may turn out to be what he said to his successor. The panel quizzed Clinton in detail about a meeting he had with President- elect Bush during the truncated transition period after the 2000 election. Clinton said he told Bush in that meeting that bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem.
December 19, 2000: Clinton Tells Bush His Top Priority Should Be Bin Laden; Bush Says It’s Saddam Hussein Instead
"After the election, Bush was so anti-Clinton, he ordered any projects that were started by the Clinton administration to either be cancelled or to be given the lowest priority. One of Clinton’s top projects at the time was the continued pursuit of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. However, Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s then National Security Advisor was told to not continue with that pursuit. If not for the 9/11 disaster in 2001, it’s hard to imagine exactly what kind of presidency George W would have had. In fact, most political historians seem to agree that without the terrorist attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, the eventual “War President”, George W Bush would most likely have been a one-term president, as was his father."
Clinton said he met with President-elect George W. Bush and told him that the biggest threat to the nation's security was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. According to Clinton, Bush said little in response, and then switched subjects."
Last edited by sickofnyc; 02-06-2009 at 09:55 AM..
I made a lot of assumptions? How so? You ask prolifers to look at gruesome pictures, then say look what your prolife president did? I think your point is pretty clear -- to be prolife is to be a bush supporter, an Iraq war supporter and essentially a hypocrit. I mean, that was what your point was, wasn't it? That to be prolife is to be a hypocrit?
Pot meet kettle? No son, you got called out on having a weak argument based on tired stereotypes, thats all.
Reread you post. Of course you made a bunch of assumptions that could be "called out" as easily as you did, if I cared. I don't. Called out? I was making a point about a different stupid thread, that's it. Relax and stop doing what you accused me of: posting assumptions about a person you don't know. Of course things are complex. Of course one person can have many different views that do not follow under stereotypes. But you made an awful lot of assumptions about me based on four sentences.
The personal jabs were a nice touch though, sweetie, but one post on an anonymous forum shouldn't get your panties all up in a wad like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
