User

You dishonestly said I didn't answer it the first time. I am not ignoring anything. Yes, I would rather have a child in poverty than kill the child. That is quite obvious to anyone with any morality at all. You don't kill humans because they are in poverty. You are the one here trying to justify killing children because they might live in poverty. That is depraved and evil. OK, so we are back to: Are you OK with the father having a say in a woman not being able to abort their child? We have a lot of laws and precedents around holding fathers accountable for providing for their children. No, it is not. Neither is some random 5 year old either, I still think it is wrong for someone in town to take their kid out back and kill them and bury them in the backyard. Well, no. We have thousands of laws that apply to everyone and in this instance we are taking about one of the most fundamental laws we have regarding not killing other people. Oh, so like I said, "you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth." So, welcome to the club, you want to force women to carry to term too! BTW, you started making comments on abortion. The absurd claim here is that somehow Trump or the GOP is currently opposed to IVF. It is in the party platform they support it. I support IVF with some considerations regarding how it is done.

We are talking about the lefts absurd use of the term Christian Nationalism here. Saying, hey, look over there! doesn't change that. So, noting about a state religion then. Got it.

Nope, it was Hamas who brutally launched their terror attack on October 7th and that is the terrorism you support.

No, you were making an absurd argument about my wanting more women to live in poverty and I responded to every one of your comments and had the last word in that discussion. Living in poverty is a non-sequitur. Unless you are so evil and depraved, you support killing 5-year-olds too, so that women can get out of poverty. Hope? So, now all of a sudden you are the one who doesn't want the father involved. So which is it? First you try to argue men should be involved, now you say it has nothing to do with them. You have made these lame arguments before and ran away from them before. It is not the woman life when she is killing the unborn child. It is the unborn child life I am concerned with. It is not her body. And are you now absurdly claiming that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason, any time, up to the moment of birth?

Men are held accountable through many laws regarding their support for a child. Are you now saying the father gets a say in whether the woman gets to have an abortion or not? It is not just men who are Pro-life either. The unborn child is not her body, it is a separate life with a body of its own.

Yemeni waters? They do not own the entire Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden you m0ron.

You are nothing if not wholly ignorant or just an outright liar. Yemen Houthi rebels fire a missile at a US warship, escalating worst Mideast sea conflict in decades https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-gulf-aden-shipping-british-military-7fafd1cfb3e04209b97a0d0f2abd5c26 "The attack on the U.S. warship, the destroyer USS Carney, marked a further escalation in the biggest confrontation at sea the U.S. Navy has seen in the Middle East in decades, as Houthi missile fire set another commercial vessel ablaze Friday night."

LOL, the way you guys throw the terminology around, it might as well be most. Even now, this is nonsense. Where does Project 2025 say anything about enshrining a state religion?

Ah yes, here you are playing the political game they want. Trump did not cause this. I am blaming the leadership and this administration, not the FEMA front line workers. Nice try. Yet again, more politics being played here. If it is of such a concern to you, then why are you on here fanning the flames?

Yes, thats right, the terrorist thugs you support here took hostages. Hamas should surrender and hand them over, or keep getting killed.

The report cited here was that some National Guardsman heard a "militia" saying they were hunting FEMA. This was relayed on and FEMA pulled their air workers. No threats were reported as being made directly to FEMA employees, they were not receiving death threats, no one was threatened with physical harm. It was an internal memo leaked to the press. I am not defending anyone here, I am pointing out this is a complete over reaction to play politics by making sure the press knew support was being pulled because of this threat.

Not an accusation. They pulled the aid. The made it a big deal by making sure the media knew about it too. That is playing politics.

Yeah, what a f*cked up administration that is going to punish people and play politics by withholding aid to their community.

LOL, because negotiations have gone so well for the last year now. Here is the negotiation: Surrender or keep getting killed.

Yeah right. You run away from me like a coward when I pick apart your dumb arguments and lies.

No one forced that woman to produce a child inside of her. Outside of rape, which is less than 5% and that 5% includes incest, rape, and life threatening conditions... Once that woman has a child in her, the choice being made here is to kill an unborn child. That child has a right to life. Even then... you most likely want to force her to carry to term as well, unless you support abortion on demand for any reason up to the moment before birth. Why are you not big on abortion?

That is your employer... not the federal government trying to tell EVERY business they must do that. You have no alternative employment. That is not the government saying if you want to travel you must be vaccinated. You have no alternatives for how to travel.

I already explained how it was vague. There is nothing specific in what was meant by terrorize or war. Its no different than other vague figures of speech like we are going to fight like hell... There is a reason why no charges were brought for terrorism as you claim was done here and no charges outside of the FACE act. No, threatening physical violence should not be lawful. Where is the specific threat of killing here? Let me demonstrate. I am going to terrorize you. This is going to be a war. It is going to be so bad I am going to run you off of here. Did I just threaten to kill you, or did I just threaten to argue with you here relentlessly? That is the point, glad you just admitted no specifics were given. Saying you are going to bring an AR to shoot the place up is a specific threat.

You sit here using language like "reproductive medicine" to obfuscate that we are talking about abortion... when the Democrats were literally using free abortions as a gimmick at their convention and you are doing this while claiming you are not pro-abortion. You are pro-abortion.

What specifically did Trump do to embolden Putin? Trump literally threatened Putin - Putin didn't invade Biden gets elected, Putin spends months building up an invasion, Biden does little to stop it... Putin invades. Yeah, after the election is Biden. Biden owned every bit of that mess. Nothing compelled him to withdrawal or do it as he did. Taliban reneged on the deal, Biden chose to ignore that and go ahead with that messy withdrawal as he did. And yet... that happened years before Putin invaded Ukraine. It was called The Battle of Khasham. Go educate yourself. Outright lie. "­­­WASHINGTON, Mar. 1, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Ukraine of Javelin Missiles and Javelin Command Launch Units (CLUs) for an estimated cost of $47 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today." https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/ukraine-javelin-missiles-and-command-launch-units 2021 Biden was President. I repudiated every comment you just made. The facts are not on your side.

You do not live in reality. They did not wait for 2 months. It took them almost 3 to scrape up 50K to start putting a dent in things there, they have been sending thousands of troops up before now. Oh great, back to the opinion game again. Fine, it is my opinion that Ukraine has vast reserves of giant cyclops men with laser beams that shoot out of their eye balls and at any moment they will vaporize all the Russian forces. Can you not read? I did not say they lost 10K there, I said that is about what they deployed. Where do you get they lost 25K men in Kursk, you know, the region we are talking about and I was talking about? Besides man, its just my opinion dude. You can't argue against that bruh. Funny how that word temporary works. It has no meaning as we are in the 3rd month now of "temporary" and even with that dent Russia made with having to scrape together 50K troops, Ukraine reports a couple of days ago were that the lines were starting to stabilize. Ukraine cares about theirs. Funny how you are thinking about this from Russias perspective here and not Ukraines... Which comments are fact? Certainly not his dumb comments on Taliban bounties. Not his comments about Trump delivering more lethal weapons to Ukraine, certainly not his comments about Trump not threatening Putin to not mess with Ukraine.... This was the comment DUI offered here to start this stupid discussion: "You must be joking. Trump is in Putin's back pocket, and if he wins the election, he will cut off all aid to the country. Trump is not "Bold and threatening" to Russia, considering he was never that way in his first Presidency. " Trump is not in Putin's back pocket. Trump has made no definitive plans for how he will end the war nor has he specifically said all aid would be cut off, nor do I think he has the power to do so with the current funding laws in place. The current aid package will continue to be spent until it runs out which might be into 2025. Trump has been bold and threatening to Russia, I already pointed out how in this thread. He was also directly bold and threatening in his first Presidency. So, no, DUI's comments were not facts or accurate and I already spent several threads calling all this out.

Terrorize how? There is nothing specific about that. War how? What means? Again, these all fit within the more vague FACE act of threatening violence to interfere with the operation of the clinic, can you articulate how they fit any "terrorism" crimes you claimed?

Long gone are the days of safe, legal, and rare. The Democrats openly celebrate it, champion it, and want to normalize it.

NATO is a defensive alliance. They pose no threat to Russia or to current or future generations of Russians as long as Russia is not attacking them.

Because threats of violence and violence without possible access to a weapon with *scary noises* "high capacity" *more scary noises* firearm is somehow better? Eye-Roll Threats have to be specific. Freedom of speech: I hope you die Criminal threat: I am going to kill you Freedom of speech: I am going to terrorize you Criminal threat: I am going to burn your house to the ground