40 Days for Life leader attacked in San Francisco

Terribly sad....., how weak that kid punk was.
The 85 year old, on the ground after a fall no less - grabs back his sign and that rotten child couldn't even over power him in the tug of war. So what does he do? Kicks the old guy on the ground 3 times trying to steal his sign, and guess who is still hanging on.

That's the true strength and the courage here.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

How can I condone it when the video doesn't even give any contexts of what's actually going on? For all anyone can tell, that could've been the young dudes sign and it was the old dude trying to snatch it.

Because you are looking for excuses to justify it.

Because it's your ideology that is doing it.

So you feel the need to rationalize it away instead of just realizing what it is that your ideology is capable of and having an introspective moment.

My "ideology" dictates that the majority of people are just petty simpletons in general, no matter what their political leaning is.

So I really have no need to "justify" or "rationalize" anyone's actions.

I just call it how I see it.

So are you part of the majority, or one of the elite? Serious question. Also, how does an ideology "dictate" the intelligence of it's followers? And, how do you determine who is elite and who isn't. Oh yeah, what ideology is this; I am curious to understand it?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Too bad he wasn't armed

At his age, given the vile thugs who attacked him, he could have easily justified the use of deadly force.

Wake up conservatives - stop permitting these kinds of attacks. One or two dead commies will send a very clear message: HANDS OFF YOU DIRT PEOPLE

That's ok.. let the anger keep building. Their day is coming, in my opinion as a guess. And I PROMISE I will make the same excuses and provide the same cover for them as these lower-than-dirt commies do for their own garbage ilk. Can't wait to watch with popcorn, hypothetically. In my opinion.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I suppose you know who this bicycler is, and have questioned him about his political opinions/affiliations.

Possible Scenario:

A bicyclist likes to ride his bicycle on sidewalks. He is very upset that anti-abortion protesters block the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. One day he had enough; took it upon himself to unblock the sidewalk by knocking over tables with books.

Two days later, these people are blocking the sidewalk again. He grabs one of the obstructive banners and attempts to keep on riding, when the leader of the sidewalk blocking campaign recklessly endangers the bicyclist's life by jamming a stick in the spokes of his bicycle.

Bicyclist is pissed about having his life threatened.

===================
Bicycling on sidewalks isn't legal in most places. Blocking sidewalks in front of businesses is also illegal in most places.

"There is blame on both sides!"

a reply to: pthena

You just reminded me, we can strike back against Planned Parenthood hit in them in the pocketbook

If leftist garbage wants to play tough we're going to play tougher. Thing is, we won this game before they even knew there was a game to be played.

a reply to: JBurns

we can strike back against Planned Parenthood hit in them in the pocketbook

So you want to hit the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Buffett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the Cullmans, and others? You want to play "tougher" with these foundations? What would that even look like?

we won this game before

Are you referring to the Hyde Amendment? Yeah, done deal. No federal funding is allocated for abortions. The Gates Foundation doesn't fund abortions either, just other health related services. Does that matter to you what people do with their own money?

If leftist garbage

Are you referring to people here?

originally posted by: olaru12
Since we all have our broad brushes out and paint progressives with one incident.

I think this is a great representation of conservative Republicans and their deviant sexual ideology. You know who you are....

www.rawstory.com...

I have other examples if you want to see them....perfect examples of Republican family values!!!

one incident

😐

Some people just dont possess the spine necessary to denounce this behavior. So they instead choose to deflect to some other thing that happened in 1985... Olaru, looking at you, buddy...

a reply to: pthena

It would look like us not spending a single dime of taxpayer money on these organizations that are antithetical to American values

We've dealt with subversive groups and individuals before, and I'm sure we will again in the future too sadly

In general, yes. When this kind of BS starts, every single dollar not obligated by law should be cut off. And FYI, there is no Constitutional right to have taxpayers fund abortions, healthcare, education or any other sorry excuse for a monetary black hole

a reply to: JBurns

organizations that are antithetical to American values

I was born sometime after 1944. So I've always assumed that public health was an American value. (see Public Health Service Act). I went to public schools, so I just assumed that education was an American value too, including the global risk of overpopulation.

Title X was passed in 1970, bipartisan and signed by Nixon. I like birth control, especially for people who can't afford it. And let's not forget public health concerns over people promiscuously spreading communicable diseases.

One time I had pain while urinating, went to a free clinic, got antibiotics. You wouldn't want me spreading that around! Actually, it happened about three times. I wish other people had been considerate enough to go to the clinic.

no Constitutional right to have taxpayers fund abortions, healthcare, education or any other sorry excuse for a monetary black hole

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Over the decades, We the people (not me specifically, because much happened before I was born) through elected officials have seen it as a good thing to have a healthy educated population as opposed to people not going to the free clinic for a shot or some pills and consequently spreading disease among an ignorant, overpopulated citizenry.

originally posted by: olaru12
Since we all have our broad brushes out and paint progressives with one incident.
...

One incident?...





Several examples of "pro-abortionists" attacking/getting violent because they don't want "pro-life" opinions to be known/shown.



At 48 seconds in the following video we can see more "pro-abortionists" getting violent even with the police.



An adult "pro-abortionist" woman yelling and getting violent against a minor "pro-lifer."











Pro-abortionists trying to stop a pro-life group.







One incident?



Meanwhile this is not an attack, these two pro-abortionists decided to take down the crosses that pro-lifers put, with permits, showing how "pro-abortionists" in general do not want "pro-lifers" to exercise our right to free speech.



I could keep going, and going posting many more such attacks, and I wouldn't even put a dent on showing the amount of these sorts of attacks from pro-abortionists against pro-lifers. But you want to claim "that's just one attack?..."

Here is a video showing the difference between "pro-life marches" and "pro-abortion marches."



Anyways, here is an example of a young woman who decided to stop being "pro-choice/pro-abortion" and decided to be "pro-life," and states why she changed her mind.

a reply to: pthena

Yet you ignore the following American value.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
...

www.ushistory.org...

The first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. There is no "right to abortion" anywhere within the Declaration of independence, the Constitution of the United States, nor the Bill of Rights within the U.S. Constitution. Nor is such a right EVER mentioned in any other document which has been used in the founding of the Union/these United States.

originally posted by: olaru12
Since we all have our broad brushes out and paint progressives with one incident.

I think this is a great representation of conservative Republicans and their deviant sexual ideology. You know who you are....

www.rawstory.com...

I have other examples if you want to see them....perfect examples of Republican family values!!!

BTW, that pervert deserves to rot in prison. But again, this thread is not about pedophiles...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yet you ignore the following American value.

Well that seems to be rather awkward!

This is your thread so I shouldn't fear that you are drifting off topic.

I don't take Jefferson to be an inerrant arbiter of truth. I freely disagree with him at times, fully cognizant of the sad circumstance that we are not living contemporaries who may ask for clarifications about unclear phrases.

For instance what exactly does "unalienable Rights" even mean? Are we to think that we are endowed with immortality? I see no evidence to support such a notion. On the contrary, in fact, I have seen many people die. I have seen evidence that people can and do alienate other people of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I conclude then that these are not "unalienable rights."

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

We can attempt to secure these rights through Governments. We should keep in mind though that the righteous attempt is no guarantee of success. People will still die. People will be held in bondage. People will be prevented from pursuing happiness. Of these three, The pursuit of happiness in the hearts and minds of people is the most resilient. For even in bondage humans can dream of better, happier circumstances.

There is no phrase in the Constitution which includes the Declaration to be part of the Constitution, therefore it is not a binding element of U.S. Law. Laws passed by Congress are taken with the Constitution and treaties to be the law of the land.

Bottom line: I advocate neither for nor against abortion. I have neither had an abortion, nor have I ever failed to have an abortion. Certain biological realities have precluded such.

ETA

I hope you update this thread in the event that the assumed perpetrator gets apprehended and interviewed.

originally posted by: pthena

Well that seems to be rather awkward!

This is your thread so I shouldn't fear that you are drifting off topic.

So you derail the thread and then complain about it being awkward when I respond to your post?...

originally posted by: pthena
I don't take Jefferson to be an inerrant arbiter of truth. I freely disagree with him at times, fully cognizant of the sad circumstance that we are not living contemporaries who may ask for clarifications about unclear phrases.

I take the Founding Fathers as very wise men. Although they all disagreed in many topics, they did agree on what form of government is better for the people to have as much liberty, and as few government intervention as possible.

BTW, although Jefferson did write the Declaration of independence, the other Founding Fathers gave their own opinion about it, which it's why the original draft Jefferson wrote wasn't part of the declaration... Although I won't mention what parts of the original draft of the declaration were not included in the final copy just so the thread is not derailed, the other Founding Fathers did give their opinion on what Jefferson had to write on the Declaration of Independence.

Your claim that the Declaration of Independence "is not a binding element of U.S. law because it is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution," is completely an inane argument.

The Declaration of Independence was the argument from the Founding Fathers to the British government, and the British King, that the 13 colonies no longer were part of Britain. It is a binding document which was the start of the creation of the U.S. as a country. Without the Declaration of Independence there would have been no "U.S. government/country."

originally posted by: pthena
For instance what exactly does "unalienable Rights" even mean? Are we to think that we are endowed with immortality? I see no evidence to support such a notion. On the contrary, in fact, I have seen many people die. I have seen evidence that people can and do alienate other people of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I conclude then that these are not "unalienable rights."

What?... unalienable rights have NOTHING to do with "immortality..." Talk about derailing the thread...

Anyway... In today's world it is rather easy to find the definition of a word if you don't understand it.

unalienable
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.
un·al·ien·a·ble (ŭn-āl′yə-nə-bəl, -ā′lē-ə-)
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: "All of them ... claim unalienable dignity as individuals"
...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

originally posted by: pthena
We can attempt to secure these rights through Governments. We should keep in mind though that the righteous attempt is no guarantee of success. People will still die. People will be held in bondage. People will be prevented from pursuing happiness. Of these three, The pursuit of happiness in the hearts and minds of people is the most resilient. For even in bondage humans can dream of better, happier circumstances.
...

Just because these rights cannot be 100% guaranteed doesn't mean those rights should be disregarded...

If we followed your logical fallacy then since we cannot guarantee any rights, then none should be protected at all... Not to mention the fact that "you" are choosing what rights should be disregarded, and what rights shouldn't be.

There are laws which protect life. If someone murders another person there are laws that will take away the liberty of the murderer for taking a life...

If someone kidnaps another person and the kidnapper is caught, there are laws that will put in prison the kidnapper for taking away the liberty and happiness of the kidnapped victim...

Abortion is in fact genocide, and now democrats have made infanticide legal.
What's the difference between a child that is attempted to be aborted one week before the due date yet survives and is born alive, and a newborn? They are both "newborns." As I mentioned in the past, and even some left-wing philosophers admitted themselves, the argument in favor of abortion can be used to argue for infanticide and even genocide.

Anyway, let's get back to the original point.

We keep seeing these violent acts from many in the far left, and left-wing politicians/leaders have been in fact consenting and instigating such behavior and criminal actions against others simply because of "political difference."

Yes, some in the far right have also resorted to violence, but the increase in violence is mostly coming from the left, and like I mentioned before, hatred leads to hatred and violence. Violence will lead to more violence.

There will be a point in which most of the right won't take anymore these attacks from the left, and the attempt from the left including the left-wing media and left-wing politicians, to suppress the rights from citizens and legal residents are not left-wing.

Things have to change, otherwise the violence will not only continue but will get worse and worse.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If we followed your logical fallacy then since we cannot guarantee any rights, then none should be protected at all... Not to mention the fact that "you" are choosing what rights should be disregarded, and what rights shouldn't be.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't reach any such conclusion. The people through representatives choose by passing laws.

There are laws which protect life. If someone murders another person there are laws that will take away the liberty of the murderer for taking a life...

Yes. 18 U.S. Code Part 1 Chapter 51

Abortion is in fact genocide,

Well that sure escalated quickly!

democrats have made infanticide legal.

Reference please. Press releases, speeches, and comments aren't considered legislation.

We keep seeing these violent acts from many in the far left, and left-wing politicians/leaders have been in fact consenting and instigating such behavior and criminal actions against others simply because of "political difference."

We keep seeing these videos.

When are Patriots (read: actual Americans ) going to get smart and arm themselves? Stop permitting these low-life waste of air mob commies to attack you and protect yourselves

If they have a rock, a stick or a roll of quarters... it is practically and more importantly legally considered a deadly weapon. A mob attack -read more than one vile thug attacker- is a deadly threat.

Get smart Patriots. Learn the law, arm yourselves and use it to defend yourselves.

“Think how we think or we’ll attack you”

The very definition of fascism.

Openly touted by the fascist left and their pathetic leaders on a daily basis

OMG the dreaded left strikes again, can't wait for Jedi to rid us all these leftist scum, squash the rebellion...

Disgusting. You are absolutely right with who's manufactured this type of behavior.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse