If someone told you that they were against the act of stealing, what question would you ask them? If you were a Liberal, you’d ask: “Why do you think some people steal?” Then, when the person being asked the question stumbles—because maybe they’re not prepared, or are just a bit dim–you’d gloat in their inability to quickly articulate an answer. But does their inability to articulate an answer make their position against stealing any less relevant? Does it suddenly make the act of stealing morally acceptable? The obvious answer is “no,” but you’d be hard pressed to find a Liberal with that slant when it comes to a******n.

The ever affable and never obnoxiously condescending Rachel Maddow played a clip on her show in which a conservative politician was asked about his position on a******n. The clip was from a documentary played on Al Jazeera. State Rep. Jim Buchy of Ohio has made his position clear that he would like a United States in which all a******n is illegal, except in cases in which the mother’s life is at risk. Because the Network is Al Jazeera–equalled only by MSNBC in their L*****t ideals–the interviewer asks this poignant question: “What do you think makes a woman want to have an a******n?” Buchy bumbles around, muttering about possible economic reasons, etc. However, let’s just say his answer was far from articulate.

And? Well, the implication by Maddow is that since the legislator can’t articulate why a woman would want an a******n, his stance on the issue is irrelevant. However, just as I mentioned above with my theft analogy, the implication doesn’t hold water. Hypotheticals regarding the motives behind an act don’t make the nature of that act irrelevant. No matter the motive behind the act, the question remains: is the act itself moral, or is it not?

Liberal wannabe-intellectuals would have you believe that questions like the one asked by Al Jazeera make one nuanced and understanding. This is a form of selective attention. By slicing an argument into pieces, and cherry picking an easily destructible portion, Liberals try to shut you up. It’s intimidation. But the reality is that with their selective questions, they have not advanced their argument at all. It’s as if they’ve pretended to move their chess piece, but nothing has actually changed the board.

If ever you come across a Liberal who attempts to argue by peppering you with irrelevant questions—they all do this, by the way—don’t be intimidated. Take a stand, and call them out. Identify the fallacy, and you’ve won half the battle.

by Frank Camp

If someone told you that they were against the act of stealing, what question would you ask them? If you were a Liberal, you’d ask: “Why do you think some people steal?” Then, when the person being asked the question stumbles—because maybe they’re not prepared, or are just a bit dim–you’d gloat in their inability to quickly articulate an answer. But does their inability to articulate an answer make their position against stealing any less relevant? Does it suddenly make the act of stealing morally acceptable? The obvious answer is “no,” but you’d be hard pressed to find a Liberal with that slant when it comes to a******n.

The ever affable and never obnoxiously condescending Rachel Maddow played a clip on her show in which a conservative politician was asked about his position on a******n. The clip was from a documentary played on Al Jazeera. State Rep. Jim Buchy of Ohio has made his position clear that he would like a United States in which all a******n is illegal, except in cases in which the mother’s life is at risk. Because the Network is Al Jazeera–equalled only by MSNBC in their L*****t ideals–the interviewer asks this poignant question: “What do you think makes a woman want to have an a******n?” Buchy bumbles around, muttering about possible economic reasons, etc. However, let’s just say his answer was far from articulate.

And? Well, the implication by Maddow is that since the legislator can’t articulate why a woman would want an a******n, his stance on the issue is irrelevant. However, just as I mentioned above with my theft analogy, the implication doesn’t hold water. Hypotheticals regarding the motives behind an act don’t make the nature of that act irrelevant. No matter the motive behind the act, the question remains: is the act itself moral, or is it not?

Liberal wannabe-intellectuals would have you believe that questions like the one asked by Al Jazeera make one nuanced and understanding. This is a form of selective attention. By slicing an argument into pieces, and cherry picking an easily destructible portion, Liberals try to shut you up. It’s intimidation. But the reality is that with their selective questions, they have not advanced their argument at all. It’s as if they’ve pretended to move their chess piece, but nothing has actually changed the board.

If ever you come across a Liberal who attempts to argue by peppering you with irrelevant questions—they all do this, by the way—don’t be intimidated. Take a stand, and call them out. Identify the fallacy, and you’ve won half the battle.

by Frank Camp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A******n is VERY MUCH a moral issue. It is about life and death. Of course, a******n, life and death are ALL reality. Do Americans favor k*****g merely for some one's convenience or not? Is premeditated murder a crime or not? Are women expected to suffer the same consequences for murder or do we excuse them merely because they "changed their minds"?
If a man shoots a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, is he prosecuted or not? It was not HER body he k**led. It was the baby's body he k**led. It is the baby's body that a******nists k**l. Is k*****g a thing to be touted and sanctioned? If so, what are the limits now and what will be the limits in the future. Isn't it better to simply deny the k*****g of innocent people?

I grew up in another era. If I didn't want a pregnancy, I kept my pantaloons on and my feet on the floor. It's easy, and it's cheap, and in the end I haven't murdered an innocent baby. HERE'S THE RUB: IT CALLS FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL. Women of today can't control their actions. It's pitiful and d********g, and I am ashamed of them.

Ok Tasine on the other side of the coin. Where is the concern for the New Town babies that were LOVED. Where are the pictures of the babies blown to bits by a maniac with an automatic weapon. Where is the law to remove those weapons from the streets that are k*****g peoples babies every day. You want to force women to have babies, but who is going to take care of them. The conservatives have shown over and over that they are not going to help these young women. Is it better for the child to starve to death on the street. After all they will be takers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see you still haven't gotten the hang of posting on 1PP.
1. I have never seen a gun do a single thing but lie there. Have never seen one get out of the closet, load itself, aim itself, pull the trigger itself. Neither have you. Guns don't k**l people any more than spoons give you diabetes.
2. Those people out on the street getting k**led by deranged people. Why in the hell did the Democrats in government cause all the nut houses to be closed???????????????? You might want want to talk to the DNC about that little factor.
3. I've never forced a woman to have a baby. Neither has any conservative done so. I would ask where you get your simpleton beliefs except that I already know. A woman who CHOOSES to have sex, KNOWING she could get pregnant is too ignorant to have a child, that is a fact, but IF it is illegal to k**l an innocent, I'd like to know why the left bawls its eyes out when a mass murderer gets put to death by the state?

LIFE is reality, dear. Time to grow up!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A******n is VERY MUCH a moral issue. It is about life and death. Of course, a******n, life and death are ALL reality. Do Americans favor k*****g merely for some one's convenience or not? Is premeditated murder a crime or not? Are women expected to suffer the same consequences for murder or do we excuse them merely because they "changed their minds"?
If a man shoots a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, is he prosecuted or not? It was not HER body he k**led. It was the baby's body he k**led. It is the baby's body that a******nists k**l. Is k*****g a thing to be touted and sanctioned? If so, what are the limits now and what will be the limits in the future. Isn't it better to simply deny the k*****g of innocent people?

I grew up in another era. If I didn't want a pregnancy, I kept my pantaloons on and my feet on the floor. It's easy, and it's cheap, and in the end I haven't murdered an innocent baby. HERE'S THE RUB: IT CALLS FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CONTROL. Women of today can't control their actions. It's pitiful and d********g, and I am ashamed of them.