Documented: Radical anti-choice comments from Conservative blogger dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks).
WD: "Republicans signing pledges is OK with me (except for yours) ... anti women's rights". ["Yours" is a reference to Willis Hart's pledge which is not to sign any more pledges". "Anti women's rights" is a reference to the GOP's opposition to a woman's right to choose].
Hm? How many decades since there has even been an anti-womens rights pledge? If there ever was one? [in response wd said "It hasn't been decades since the Republicans tried to restrict a woman's right to choose. That's going on RIGHT NOW"].
And we need to reduce spending, a lot. There's so much waste. We can start with the hundreds of billions which are going in "entitlements" to the wealthy and well off. Waste that WD says we need for propaganda purposes, not because those people need the government handouts.
WD said: "and his insistence that the man [former preznit gwb] who turned a surplus into more than 6 trillion in debt ISN'T responsible for the "debt problem"?"
The Clinton surplus is as real as unicorns. There were only defificts on his watch. Bush turned a deficit into a higher deficit. Obama did the same thing. Also, you are confusing debt and deficit. Clinton handed Bush a massive debt that he added $1.6 trillion to, himself. Bush then added $6 trillion to it.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Or perhaps he's just a moron. Because everyone who isn't a moron knows bush is responsible for the lion's share of the national debt".
Two lions. The amount of debt Bush is reaponsible for is about the same as the amount Obama is responsible for. Only Obama's done this in 3 years and it took Bush 8.
[Dervish Sanders said] "It hasn't been decades since the Republicans tried to restrict a woman's right to choose".
You mean "restrict abortion". That is what the issue is about. Abortion, yes or no. Not "choice". And actually this is a children's rights matter, not a women's rights matter. Most people oppose abortion, and more women than men oppose it.
WD: "Also, men should have no say regarding what any woman does with her body. It's a misogynistic position".
which has nothing to do with abortion, which is an issue over what is done with a child. It is as much about restriction what a woman does with her body as rape is about what a man does with his body: such weasel-words are attempts to mask the fact that the issue is abortion: yes or no?". Also, more victims of abortion are young females than they are young males... more so with sex selection becoming common. It's a misogynistic practice. [Interpretation: Abortion should be illegal just as rape is illegal].
It's is not control of a woman's body that is controversial. It is violence against the body of another person, the child. There was zero misogynistic content in Voltron's comment. [Re Voltron saying "What about equal rights? She didn't get pregnant by herself. What if the father WANTS the baby? What if he doesn't and she does? Why does he have to pay for the next 18 years?"].
[Dervish Sanders said] "...feel pretty strongly that it is their God given "right" to force a woman to carry a [child] they don't want to term".
The only force involved, WD, is the violence involved in killing the child. Without such acts of violence, the child (who is already a living human being) will continue to survive.
There we have it. WD thinks that the people can't be trusted to decide whether or not to buy a Hyundai automobile, and this decision must be left to the rulers....but this is not true at all if someone "Chooses" to kill another human being. Only these decision are private matters. There we have it.
Never heard of this guy [Joe Walsh] before. The deadbeat dad part sounds bad, but the abortion part much less so for me, since I think abortion is a bad idea. And I have an opposite view of RN as to which side in the abortion controversy tilts more toward fascism. But thanks, Will, now I have the songs "Space Age Whiz Kids" and "Life's Been Good" in my head.
Those at the top of PP rake in millions, and the outfit receives billions in corporate welfare from the government.
I read that this is all OK because the money that PP is making chopping up kids and selling the pieces is not enough for them to make a profit. A real weak defense. If we use this logic, we can excuse any other corporation for any sort of malfeasance if it is not making a profit (i.e. bungling business practices, poor management) at that time.
[Willis Hart said] "PP get their cash the old fashioned way; by earning it and through private donations".
Too bad the Hyde Amendment, put in place to stop the government from being involved in the business of harming the young, isn't interpreted to such direct subsidy to the abortion industry. But the funding could end up in danger. Remember ACORN, the election fraud scam, that got cut off finally.
Good point. The abortion industry thrives on people not knowing what they do. PP is very extreme, and greedy: they demand tax money to to be used to harm unborn children all the way up to newborns. It's run by sickos who get their jollies killing as many of the unborn as possible. Do they need to engage in their deadly sadism on the public dime?
| Posts that link here [TADM #48] Vile Lie Concerning Russ Feingold From Dennis Marks, Then Cognitive Dissonance When He Is Confronted With the Truth, 7/18/2014. [TADM #79] Evidence Shows Dennis Marks Might Be The Kind Of Person Who'd Assassinate A Doctor Who Performs Abortions, 8/25/2015. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.