New America,The LEFT Glory to Abortion and Suicide!

[saxitoxin]

It almost seems like some of you people are happy some girl was raped.

I was thinking the same.

MAGA: Want to stop 10 year olds from being impregnated by illegal immigrants.

Democrats: Don't want to stop 10 year olds from being impregnated by illegal immigrants. However, will give them an $85 bus ticket to Indiana in exchange for right to use them as abortion props in Ed Markey campaign ads.

[bigtoughralf]

For the record I still support gay marriage.

[saxitoxin]

For the record I still support gay marriage.

no one's asking for you and Seamus to get divorced

[mookiemcgee]

---------------[size=150]Because this is a made up story

[ConfederateSS]

--------- ...That is Funny Mookie ....Also because I am an Earthling ...
-------------You are wrong for 2 reasons....
-------------1) Because...It was mostly likely made up....In a Doctor's plan for Abortion publicty it was...I even said it was most likely made up...Biden should have never ran with it, fake or real... Because He is just as guilty as the Doctor, exploiting a young child for his political view...
-------------2) You are just as bad as the Doctor..And Biden.....Happy that it is a real Story, whipped up by a Doctor's sick mind....Where a yound child rape victim is used as a political pawn...When the child could of had an abortion, without crossing state lines...Any reasonable Human Being would have Prayed to GOD....I hope this is a made up story....For a horrible act of hurting a child is unthinkable .....Sad Mookie...Sad ..... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[mookiemcgee]

It was mostly likely made up....

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/202 ... 046625002/

None of it was ever 'made up'

Biden should have never ran with it, fake or real...

He has every right to talk about real news stories, it's a refreshing change from a President who prefers to talk about made up stories like saying an election was stolen, or that americans should drink bleach and expose their inner organs to sunlight to protect against disease. You are always talking about how America needs more God and morality, yet you are constantly defending the married guy who said this about women who aren't his wife -"I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."

You are just as bad as the Doctor..And Biden.....

I can live with that, but you are as bad as the Guatemalan rapist!

[riskllama]

[jonesthecurl]

We don't need abortion, we need border control. Old Joe's policies are failing 10 year old American girls and causing them to get raped.

because of course no 'real' Americans would do such a thing.... well, here's a casual search of nearby cases.

(Woodland, CA) – November 24, 2015 – District Attorney Jeff Reisig announced that a Yolo County Jury convicted 49-year-old Woodland man Daniel West yesterday of three felony counts of child molestation. The jury heard evidence that West molested the victim sometime between June, 2010 and July, 2014 at a residence in Woodland. The Woodland Police Department investigated the crime and arrested West in January, 2015.

WOODLAND — Officers arrested a Woodland High School teacher Friday when he was accused of touching a student and making inappropriate comments about her body.

Woodland Joint Unified School District officials called the Woodland Police Department about Scott Sorgent, 44, who reportedly touched a 14 or 15-year-old female student and made suggestive comments about her body Thursday after the school day was over.

Officers arrived at the school around 10 a.m. and arrested Sorgent on suspicion of committing a lewd act on a child 10 years his junior.

WOODLAND, CA – The alleged victim of 57 counts of child molestation took the witness stand Thursday here in Yolo County Superior Court.

The victim is the niece of the accused (who won’t be identified because it may violate the privacy of the victim) faces 30 counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 14 by force and 27 counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 14.

The witness, the niece of the defendant, appeared with a support person.

The victim said, “When I was five, I lived at my aunt’s house” with her “sister, my uncle, my aunt.” Both her parents were in prison for drugs at the time, she added.

Regarding the sexual assault, she was allegedly sexually assaulted in the bathroom by the accused when she was six. According to the witness, she was sexually assaulted by the accused “more than 50 times.”

The victim also said that the accused not only molested the victim in the bathroom or his bedroom, but also in the tree house at the backyard of the home, while her younger sister witnessed it. Even while on camping trips, the accused would molest the victim inside the tent.

The victim said “when I was 11 or 12 (2005) and I ran away to soccer practice, from there I went to my friend’s house and later I stayed at my cousin’s house.” The accused, she added, pleaded with the victim to return, but she was scared.

After 13 years of staying silent, in 2018, the victim told her sister about what happened and filed a police report with the West Sacramento Police Dept. in April 2019. She testified she reported it because she was fearful her niece (who was seven at the time) would suffer the same fate.

Deputy Public Defender James Bradford cross-examined the victim, asking if the victim benefits from testifying against the accused, to which the victim responded “no.”

The next witness called to the stand was Detective Andrea Aing, with the West Sacramento Police Department. She was given the case and had the task of contacting the accused to interview him.

After some time trying to get in contact with him through phone calls and letters, the accused did show up to the West Sacramento Police Department to discuss the accusations against him.

A video of the police interrogation was shown to the jury. This video shows the accused explaining the crimes and the actions that he had participated in with the victim.

In the beginning of the video the accused can be seen talking about how “the Lord” had brought him to the police to make his sins “right.” He also wanted the officer to know the victim had reported things that he had never done. He repeatedly stated the victim was adding things because she was angry and wanted him to go away for a long time.

He did admit, on the video, events had happened during the summer while the victim was somewhere around 11 or 12.

The accused recalled one night the victim had asked him to come in and scratch her back while he was on his way to bed. While he was scratching her back he said that he realized how much of a woman she was becoming and his manly instinct started to “kick in.”

[jimboston]

Jonesy…. anecdotal evidence is fine for Saxi and “the Right”. It’s his favorite tool.

On one hand he’ll bitch about there being ‘5 million illegal immigrants’ (coming here over decades, but he’ll blame Ole Joe for them all).

Then he’ll point to ONE PERSON out that 5 million as 100% proof they’re all evil.

How many Congressmen (and women) on both sides use illegals to mow their lawns?

It’s all hypocrisy!

[mookiemcgee]

------------ 1) Isn't there a client, doctor privacy law...
-------------2) Doctors are suppose to report rape victims to law enforcement....Which this Indiana doctor didn't do....Nor did the Biden Administration fact check this story....

Oops, looks like you were wrong about this little bit you were trying to hold onto also!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... =1&title=1

The doctor DID in fact report the rape to the Indiana Department of Child Services and received by the Indiana Department of Health on July 2 as is her requirement under law.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard's lawyer, Kathleen DeLaney of DeLaney & DeLaney LLC, provided the report to WRTV Thursday evening which states the abortion was performed on June 30.

The report also shows that the abortion was reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services and received by the Indiana Department of Health on July 2. According to Indiana Code, doctors are required to submit the report within three days after the abortion if the patient is under 14.



WRTV has also filed a records request to obtain those documents from the same time frame last year, which are public record in Indiana.

On Thursday evening, Bernard's lawyer released the following statement:

"My client, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case, just as she does every day to provide the best possible care for her patients. She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client, including Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

In a statement on Friday morning, IU Health said a review found Bernard is in compliance with privacy laws.

"As part of IU Health’s commitment to patient privacy and compliance with privacy laws, IU Health routinely initiates reviews, including the matters in the news concerning Dr. Caitlin Bernard," the statement read. "Pursuant to its policy, IU Health conducted an investigation with the full cooperation of Dr. Bernard and other IU Health team members. IU Health’s investigation found Dr. Bernard in compliance with privacy laws."

https://www.wrtv.com/news/state-news/do ... -statement

Oops, looks like every lie you tried to throw at this story came up as entirely false... WHICH NO ONE HERE EVEN POSTED ABOUT UNTIL YOU DID.

Maybe next time you can look before you leap?

I wonder who will retract their claims it was a hoax first Tucker Carlson, or Laura Ingram?

[jusplay4fun]

Is anyone surprised?

Harris skipped her homework on abortion and the Constitution

Since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, support for abortion has rested in large measure on stare decisis (“Let the decision stand”), that is, on precedent. But if stare decisis is the basis of the argument on abortion, those taking that position today have lost.

Here’s how: From 1787 and the ratification of the Constitution to 1973 — 186 years later — hundreds of Supreme Court justices neither found nor created an argument of stare decisis in the Constitution to defend a constitutional right to abortion. Why not? Because that right was not in the Constitution. In 1973 the court installed the right to abortion in the Constitution. That was a political, social intervention.

Apparently, Justice Samuel Alito’s driving flaw in Dobbs v. Jackson this year was that he was too honest to find a constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution or a stare decisis basis in the history of the Supreme Court.

Harris rails against an activist court, but the court in 1973 was patently activist in declaring a right to abortion in the Constitution that no other court in the past 186 years had seen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-skipped-her-homework-on-abortion-and-the-constitution/ar-AA11Q5En?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6bbe071b613242f4fe63825406721e2f

People cry foul when their oxen are the one gored. They fail to see how many others their oxen gore.

[jimboston]

Is anyone surprised?

Harris skipped her homework on abortion and the Constitution

Since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, support for abortion has rested in large measure on stare decisis (“Let the decision stand”), that is, on precedent. But if stare decisis is the basis of the argument on abortion, those taking that position today have lost.

Here’s how: From 1787 and the ratification of the Constitution to 1973 — 186 years later — hundreds of Supreme Court justices neither found nor created an argument of stare decisis in the Constitution to defend a constitutional right to abortion. Why not? Because that right was not in the Constitution. In 1973 the court installed the right to abortion in the Constitution. That was a political, social intervention.

Apparently, Justice Samuel Alito’s driving flaw in Dobbs v. Jackson this year was that he was too honest to find a constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution or a stare decisis basis in the history of the Supreme Court.

Harris rails against an activist court, but the court in 1973 was patently activist in declaring a right to abortion in the Constitution that no other court in the past 186 years had seen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-skipped-her-homework-on-abortion-and-the-constitution/ar-AA11Q5En?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6bbe071b613242f4fe63825406721e2f

People cry foul when their oxen are the one gored. They fail to see how many others their oxen gore.

First line in the article after the Title….


Opinion by Ronald L. Trowbridge,

[jusplay4fun]

Is anyone surprised?

Harris skipped her homework on abortion and the Constitution

Since the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, support for abortion has rested in large measure on stare decisis (“Let the decision stand”), that is, on precedent. But if stare decisis is the basis of the argument on abortion, those taking that position today have lost.

Here’s how: From 1787 and the ratification of the Constitution to 1973 — 186 years later — hundreds of Supreme Court justices neither found nor created an argument of stare decisis in the Constitution to defend a constitutional right to abortion. Why not? Because that right was not in the Constitution. In 1973 the court installed the right to abortion in the Constitution. That was a political, social intervention.

Apparently, Justice Samuel Alito’s driving flaw in Dobbs v. Jackson this year was that he was too honest to find a constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution or a stare decisis basis in the history of the Supreme Court.

Harris rails against an activist court, but the court in 1973 was patently activist in declaring a right to abortion in the Constitution that no other court in the past 186 years had seen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-skipped-her-homework-on-abortion-and-the-constitution/ar-AA11Q5En?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=6bbe071b613242f4fe63825406721e2f

People cry foul when their oxen are the one gored. They fail to see how many others their oxen gore.

First line in the article after the Title….


Opinion by Ronald L. Trowbridge,

That is TRUE of MOST of POLITICS, jimb. But that is not obvious to you, apparently.

[jimboston]

First line in the article after the Title….


Opinion by Ronald L. Trowbridge,

That is TRUE of MOST of POLITICS, jimb. But that is not obvious to you, apparently.

The title and article present as fact… you repeat in a manner presenting as fact.

It’s obvious to me but you seemed to have missed it. Like you miss most things.

Why not include the fact that it’s an opinion piece when you copy & paste the contents of the article?

You’re very good at copying & pasting usually.

[jusplay4fun]

First line in the article after the Title….


Opinion by Ronald L. Trowbridge,

That is TRUE of MOST of POLITICS, jimb. But that is not obvious to you, apparently.

The title and article present as fact… you repeat in a manner presenting as fact.

It’s obvious to me but you seemed to have missed it. Like you miss most things.

Why not include the fact that it’s an opinion piece when you copy & paste the contents of the article?

You’re very good at copying & pasting usually.

You continue to engage in circumlocution. When I answer your question, you accuse me of being TOO obvious.

I did NOT HIDE that the linked URL was an opinion. SO what if it is? This is a political discussion, right? Now you are trying to say opinions are not allowed? More nonsense from jimB, the guy competing with saxi to offer LOTS of nonsense.

[jimboston]

Now you are trying to say opinions are not allowed?

Not at all. Just observing the fact that the title (stated as fact) is not actually accurate.

You copy&paste so much it was unclear if you were aware that it was the “author’s” opinion that Kamala must’ve “skipped her homework” and that he’s got not factual proof to support said statement.

Much like how you and HitRed spout a bunch of bullshit that supposedly comes from some floating man in the clouds… yet you are unable to provide evidence to support your opinion that said floating man actually exists.

I subscribe to Pastafarian religious views though I too have nothing substantial to provide as evidence that these believes are factually based…

https://www.spaghettimonster.org/

[jusplay4fun]

Now you are trying to say opinions are not allowed?

Not at all. Just observing the fact that the title (stated as fact) is not actually accurate.

You copy&paste so much it was unclear if you were aware that it was the “author’s” opinion that Kamala must’ve “skipped her homework” and that he’s got not factual proof to support said statement.

Much like how you and HitRed spout a bunch of bullshit that supposedly comes from some floating man in the clouds… yet you are unable to provide evidence to support your opinion that said floating man actually exists.

I subscribe to Pastafarian religious views though I too have nothing substantial to provide as evidence that these believes are factually based…

https://www.spaghettimonster.org/

I was aware. I acknowledge that, that is obvious, and you keep denying that I did with more circumlocution. More sound and fury and signifying nothing, JimBO.

What I "spout" is in the Bible and not from a voice in my head. THAT is a clear difference, that you again fail to realize or acknowledge. BUT your hat-red for hit-red apparently clouds your judgement about what he quotes and what I quote.

And what "proof" would convince you to believe in God? NOTHING, I am rather sure. I have challenged you now at least twice to look up and read Pascal's Wager and you have said nothing about it. Your loss, jimB. AND you LOST that bet and wager, TOO. I have said repeatedly that jimB is a loser and I have proved that point, AGAIN, and rather easily this time.

[jimboston]

And what "proof" would convince you to believe in God? NOTHING,

Wrong. Personal revelation from the Mighty One Himself would do it.

[jusplay4fun]

And what "proof" would convince you to believe in God? NOTHING,

Wrong. Personal revelation from the Mighty One Himself would do it.

So, jimB, did you already get your personal reveal from the Mighty One Himself? I doubt that. He likely sent the whisper and you were waiting a big booming voice or to hear Him in the earthquake. or the fire.

[jimboston]

And what "proof" would convince you to believe in God? NOTHING,

Wrong. Personal revelation from the Mighty One Himself would do it.

So, jimB, did you already get your personal reveal from the Mighty One Himself? I doubt that. He likely sent the whisper and you were waiting a big booming voice or to hear Him in the earthquake. or the fire.

If “He” existed and if “He” wanted me to acknowledge “His” existence…. I’m certain he’d be capable of getting my attention.

Therefore… using logic… I have to assume either “He”…
1) doesn’t exist
-or-
2) is perfectly fine if I don;t acknowledge “Him”

[jusplay4fun]

And what "proof" would convince you to believe in God? NOTHING,

Wrong. Personal revelation from the Mighty One Himself would do it.

So, jimB, did you already get your personal reveal from the Mighty One Himself? I doubt that. He likely sent the whisper and you were waiting a big booming voice or to hear Him in the earthquake. or the fire.

If “He” existed and if “He” wanted me to acknowledge “His” existence…. I’m certain he’d be capable of getting my attention.

Therefore… using logic… I have to assume either “He”…
1) doesn’t exist
-or-
2) is perfectly fine if I don;t acknowledge “Him”

You have Free WIll to decide to do whatever you want. Can we accept that? And move on from that as a basis for logical, clear, and civil discussion?

Did you look up Pascal's Wager (NOT Pascal;s, btw). Start with that as a good place to begin a discussion; so is my quote from 1 Kings. Did you read that? Or do you chose to ignore that, too?

I see both your logic and reasoning as flawed, btw2, in your last post.

He will not treat you any differently than He treats other humans when he "contacts" and communicates to you. Let me offer you another Bible quote.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 16:19-31
New International Version

[jimboston]

1) I believe in Free Will…so yeah we can accept that as agreed upon for a basis of any logical arguments.

2) Pascal’s Wager assumes that we humans are capable of interpreting God’s Will.

2b) Pascal’s Wager also has a couple logic flaws. First it’s presuming you’re options are limited to “God” and “No God”. It’s also presuming a Christian World View…. one could make the same argument for believing and any Religion. Yet you can’t believe (or act is if you believe) in EVERY religion just to “cover your ass” because some of those beliefs and actions will conflict.

2c) I’m also not sure you get into Heaven by “living as though God exists” even if you don;t believe. My understanding is that God can see into your heart… so even if you act pious a ddo “all the right things” if you are just doing these things and acting is this way to “cover your ass” it won;t work.

3) Bible quotes mean NOTHING to me just because they are from the Bible. Since I don;t believe the Bible is divinely inspired any more than The Lord of the Rings is Divinely Inspired. (i.e. I can believe both are or neither… there’s no logical reason from me to believe one is the other isn’t; except maybe the fact that “The Bible” as we know it is really an editted amalgamation of many writers.)

That said The Bible of Christ does have many quotes that offere value and wisdom… which I can see an appreciate even if I don;t believe it;s “The Word of God”.

[jusplay4fun]

1) I believe in Free Will…so yeah we can accept that as agreed upon for a basis of any logical arguments.

2) Pascal’s Wager assumes that we humans are capable of interpreting God’s Will.

2b) Pascal’s Wager also has a couple logic flaws. First it’s presuming you’re options are limited to “God” and “No God”. It’s also presuming a Christian World View…. one could make the same argument for believing and any Religion. Yet you can’t believe (or act is if you believe) in EVERY religion just to “cover your ass” because some of those beliefs and actions will conflict.

2c) I’m also not sure you get into Heaven by “living as though God exists” even if you don;t believe. My understanding is that God can see into your heart… so even if you act pious a ddo “all the right things” if you are just doing these things and acting is this way to “cover your ass” it won;t work.

3) Bible quotes mean NOTHING to me just because they are from the Bible. Since I don;t believe the Bible is divinely inspired any more than The Lord of the Rings is Divinely Inspired. (i.e. I can believe both are or neither… there’s no logical reason from me to believe one is the other isn’t; except maybe the fact that “The Bible” as we know it is really an editted amalgamation of many writers.)

That said The Bible of Christ does have many quotes that offere value and wisdom… which I can see an appreciate even if I don;t believe it;s “The Word of God”.

As I said elsewhere, the existence of God cannot be proved or disproven by the intellect of man, any man. Since you have convinced yourself that God, or the Christian God, or any god does NOT exist, then I see no real point of trying to convince you otherwise.

As far as Pacal's Wager, I will take the logic of a known and intelligent thinker and mathematician over you or anyone else on CC on this matter. As I already said, your logic on this matter is flawed, so there is no point debating this issue as your mind is already made up. I will acknowledge that after my 3rd or more request on this matter that you finally offered some response.

i am not a bit surprised that you are so dismissive of the Bible. Again, no point is discussing this with you. I will add that I have read LOTS on this matter, especially by Christian apologetics writers such as C. S. Lewis, and they basically make many of the same arguments that I do. Lewis does argue for the existence of God from the perspective of "Moral Law" but I suspect that:

1) you will ignore me on that matter, or
2) that this is no better than the Bible TO YOU because it is written by those "duped' by God and by the writers (and interpreters) of the Bible.

Christian apologetics (Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity.[2]

Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism.

Blaise Pascal was an active Christian apologist during the 17th century. In the modern period, Christianity was defended through the efforts of many authors such as John Henry Newman, G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, as well as G. E. M. Anscombe.

NOW, watching fireworks in the sky is more worthy of my time.