Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

How can any republican or conservative support a presidential candidate who is both "very pro-choice" and "very pro-life"?

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
Is there any republican or conservative reading this who can explain it?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
seaoat and sal call me a "fence sitter".

How can that be when I've always been 100% pro-choice and always will be.

The REAL fence sitters are the libtards who say "I don't like abortions personally but I support the woman's right to choose".

Bullshit. I not only support the woman's right to choose 110%, I honestly don't mind abortions at all. In fact, if it was up to me we'd step up the abortion rate to get rid of all these unwanted babies.

These fucking morons sal and seaoat can keep calling me a fence sitter. And like always you'll be lying cunts when you do.

2seaoat


Bob support's choice and we already know he supports the death penalty so at least he is good with consistency on these issues.  Trump is a flim flam man who can talk out of both sides of his mouth, so nobody is surprised that he has taken two positions.  He is Romney's mole.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
No, the definition of "fence-sitter" to you and sal is someone who does not cowtow totally to the libtard philosophy OR someone who does not cowtow totally to the wingnut philosophy.
For your fence sitter definition, you and Sal defer totally to Ann Coulter when she says "you're EITHER a liberal OR you're a conservative, if you have an IQ higher than a toaster. In other words that's the same thing as saying that, in order to have an IQ which is higher than that of a toaster, you EITHER have to be brainwashed to believe everything which claims to be conservative, OR you have to be brainwashed to believe everything which claims to be liberal.

And now you've mischaracterized my position on capital punishment.
The fact is I AM very much on the fence on capital punishment.
I have zero problem with executing any violent aggressor. I would like to be there myself in a crowd of people throwing the stones to stone him to death.
And screw Jesus because I've never committed the sin of being a violent aggressor who intentionally takes the life of another human being so I will gladly "cast the first stone".

That's the first part of my 2 part morality code. An eye for an eye (Retribution).
However, the second half of the dynamic duo, the Golden Rule (Reciprocity) prohibits me from ever being party to an execution if there is even a reasonable doubt that we are executing an innocent person.
And according to the latest information I have, we are still executing innocent persons even after the advent of DNA testing.

So, on this one I'm on the fence.






2seaoat


So, on this one I'm on the fence.

No.....you have been a strong proponent of death and torture for years....you are simply getting senile and forgetting what you have posted......by golly I did not mean kill the bastards....I really meant be gentle with them and let them remain in jail.....because I am sitting on a fence.......first you do not recognize your propensity to try to make everybody happy, and now you forget what you have posted......maybe your fence sitting has now become organic......uncontrollable by rational thought.....just a safe place for you. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
2seaoat wrote:So, on this one I'm on the fence.

No.....you have been a strong proponent of death and torture for years....you are simply getting senile and forgetting what you have posted......by golly I did not mean kill the bastards....I really meant be gentle with them and let them remain in jail.....because I am sitting on a fence.  lol

What it comes down to is I want to torture the guilty and I want to protect the innocent.  
The consistency is a never wavering defense of victims.  And victims take more than one form.  Yes a victim can be someone killed by a violent aggressor.  But a victim can also be someone wrongfully accused and in that case,  should it result in an execution,  the state becomes the violent aggressor no different than any other serial killer.
It has nothing to do with me being soft on the guilty. I still want to see the guilty be tortured.

2seaoat


I want to torture the guilty and I want to protect the innocent.


Duh......who doesn't, the devil is in the detail of determining guilt or innocence, but you usually jump immediately to torture the bastards and kill them.......and yes a lot of folks like you have killed a great many innocent people......like you have said on more than one occasion why waste time with trials and lawyers....there are body limbs....kill the bastards.....but now you want to sit on the fence and convince us you were just kidding after all these years......senility....LOL.

Guest


Guest
Bob wrote:
2seaoat wrote:So, on this one I'm on the fence.

No.....you have been a strong proponent of death and torture for years....you are simply getting senile and forgetting what you have posted......by golly I did not mean kill the bastards....I really meant be gentle with them and let them remain in jail.....because I am sitting on a fence.  lol

What it comes down to is I want to torture the guilty and I want to protect the innocent.  
The consistency is a never wavering defense of victims.  And victims take more than one form.  Yes a victim can be someone killed by a violent aggressor.  But a victim can also be someone wrongfully accused and in that case,  should it result in an execution,  the state becomes the violent aggressor no different than any other serial killer.
It has nothing to do with me being soft on the guilty.  I still want to see the guilty be tortured.  

But, you'll waive that view when it comes to the abortion of innocent unborn people?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
Nah,  it's not really "waiving a view" or being inconsistent.
We all have to arrive at our own subjective definition of when human life begins.  
Some say when an egg is fertilized.  Some say at the moment of birth.
I'd put it somewhere between the two and say life begins when the fetus is capable of surviving on it's own without the need of the mother's womb to support it.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI
Why are we resisting euthanasia ? Old people are a real drag on the system. They contribute little and require way too many resources that could be more appropriately used.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
2seaoat wrote:I want to torture the guilty and I want to protect the innocent.


Duh......who doesn't, the devil is in the detail of determining guilt or innocence, but you usually jump immediately to torture the bastards and kill them.......and yes a lot of folks like you have killed a great many innocent people......like you have said on more than one occasion why waste time with trials and lawyers....there are body limbs....kill the bastards.....but now you want to sit on the fence and convince us you were just kidding after all these years......senility....LOL.

Jesus I can very clearly spell out what exactly it is I believe in two back to back posts and then you come along to tell me I think something exactly ass fucking backwards from what I said.

You're not only the world's foremost expert like Irwin Corey,  you're also the world's foremost psychic except everything you predict turns out like Wrong Way Corrigan.  lol

2seaoat


I got you right Bob.  I do not want abortion, or the death sentence, but concede that government has the right to not interfere with a woman's body, and allow a fetus to be terminated, and to kill people accused of certain crimes.  I find both morally wrong, but concede that government has those options.  In my perfect world no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy and no government would need to use capital punishment......but I have yet to see that perfect world.

2seaoat


then you come along to tell me I think something exactly ass fucking backwards from what I said.

Confused or forgetful Bob as to what you said which time?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
From what you just wrote I have you all figured out,  seaoat.  It's all due to your struggle with those deep down racist feelings.  
You're like the queer republican politicians who spend their careers fighting against homosexuality.  It's you who really hates those little brown bags of garbage and consciously you're not even aware of it.
There's a little donald trump voice inside you desperately trying to come out.

2seaoat


Splendid logic, like the logic that killing the bastards with no trial after you torture them is sitting on the fence on capital punishment....do you even read what you post?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
2seaoat wrote:Splendid logic, like the logic that killing the bastards with no trial after you torture them is sitting on the fence on capital punishment....do you even read what you post?

No, one of the worst bastards I've encountered is that "common" criminal (according to you) who they put on trail for the Boston massacre.
I'm all for him getting a trial. Then torture him the same way he tortured his victims. Blow his arms and legs off one at a time.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
And no I don't only want to see mooslims and little brown bags of garbage tortured.
The top of my bucket list for torture would be Dick Cheeny.  And I don't believe he's either mooslim or a brown sack of garbage.  Looks more like a white sack of garbage to me.

Hardly an "on the fence" position to take.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
Actually Cheeney could be the lead in the remake of Frankenstein's Monster what with that mechanical contraption that's keeping him alive artificially. It does double duty, it keeps his blood pumping and it also keeps his mouth running.
Not only do we need torture,  but after the torture we need to run him through sarah palin's death panels and have sarah drive a silver stake through his heart (or whatever that is that passes for a heart) to make sure he don't come back alive again.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
But see, all of this begs the whole point of the thread. Which is how can any pro-life conservative vote for a candidate who admittedly is both "very pro-choice" AND "very pro-life"?

And as you can see, no one has yet to come on here to try to defend Trump on this because there is no defense for it. He obviously is just some blowhard who will say anything at any time just to get attention.

2seaoat


Trump is all about Romney......it is not checkers, but chess.  He will humiliate folks in those debates.  He will mostly speak the truth and be ruthless.....the Dixiecrats will turn on those other candidates, their poll numbers after NH will drop and Romney will enter in either NH or SC.....with all his major opponents compromised, and he will have avoided most of the clown show.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
2seaoat wrote:Trump is all about Romney......it is not checkers, but chess.  He will humiliate folks in those debates.  He will mostly speak the truth and be ruthless.....the Dixiecrats will turn on those other candidates, their poll numbers after NH will drop and Romney will enter in either NH or SC.....with all his major opponents compromised, and he will have avoided most of the clown show.

Well I'll have to admit that it would be an interesting scenario.  

But I'm afraid the part I've quoted in red gives you away,  seaoat.
The "truth" as you put it is Trump saying the border needs to be locked down
because "bad people" are coming through.  

So from now on in every political discussion on this board,  I'm going to have to point out what you said the truth is in that quote.  Exactly the same as you cherry pick out something I've said and then latch onto that till the end of time.  
I think they call it "turnabout is fair play" and "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".  lol

Guest


Guest
Seagoat is beginning to remind me of a manic... the scenario just keeps evolving into madness.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
No I think what is happening is seaoat's true self is finally coming out.
I always wondered whyy he'd use such a horrible term referring to other human beings as "little brown bags of garbage" over and over.  Now we see why.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob
No for Bruce Jenner to be like seaoat, Jenner would have to say Michelle Bachman and her husband Mr. Michelle Bachman are both "speaking the truth".

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum