Delicious: Pro-aborts lose control of pathetic #PissedAtPerry hashtag; Conservatives dominate

All your hashtags are belong to us.

At the Netroots Nation gathering last week, progressives admitted they haven’t figured out how to push back against conservative Twitter messaging and lamented what they called the “Michelle Malkin effect.”

Looks like their “star-studded” nutroots powwow didn’t yield any bright ideas!

Lefty abortion evangelists tried out this social media activism thingamabob again with the #PissedAtPerry hashtag. The femme-a-gogue Twitter push was an expression of their rage over pro-life Texas Gov. Rick Perry daring to call a special legislative session to give lawmakers a chance to protect the unborn from the screeching, undemocratic abortion mob.

Bless their hearts.

Lefty hashtag narratives are hard. But conservative hijacking? Easy peasy!

So do we.

Related:

Netroots Nation struggles to counter ‘Michelle Malkin effect’

Confirmed: Conservatives crushed liberals on Twitter in 2012

Tweet truth to power: Michelle Malkin talks conservative Twitter domination at RightOnline; Update: Video added

  • b_truit

    Well, I think 2014 is gonna shake things up like 2010. In my district and the next one over (just outside DC) we voted out one lib and one establishment in favor of tea party candidates. Keep showing your true colors libs. We’re coming for you

    • Bretzysdude

      Just make sure we vet better so we don’t get a RubINO.

      • JB

        I was doing pretty well without my meds today and then you had to go and mention Rubio… damn you ….

      • JB

        I was doing pretty well without my meds today and then you had to go and mention Rubio… damn you ….

      • MissJames

        Tim Scott ? Trey Gowdy ? Let’s start a list .

    • BlueGood

      S.M@redsteeze

      It kicked me! Did you see that?!? The thing assaulted me from the inside…I’m suing… Hate crime! #PissedAtPerry

      Gotta be the # 1 Snark Tweet…well done SM! You coined the EXACT frame of mind for Fembot Liebrals!

      1,000 Thumbs Up!

    • BlueGood

      S.M@redsteeze

      It kicked me! Did you see that?!? The thing assaulted me from the inside…I’m suing… Hate crime! #PissedAtPerry

      Gotta be the # 1 Snark Tweet…well done SM! You coined the EXACT frame of mind for Fembot Liebrals!

      1,000 Thumbs Up!

    • gun_nut

      We will need to do much better that 2010. There is not much of this country left. If we don’t get out now, there won’t be much chance left.

      Look at how effective the liberals were with gay whatever. Most shows on TV have gay characters and make it look normal. Any story that points out higher disease rates or higher crime rates was suppressed as “hateful”. Every school child in public school learns gay sex is normal in health class. In one generation they changed the majority public opinion to favorable for something the previous generation was disgusted by and would talk about.

      Issue by issue, the left is convincing young people to come to their side because we have giving our children to the liberals to educate. They are tough that dependance is good, Marxism is only fair, and no one should be a winner unless everyone is a winner. Liberals have highjacked our schools, government, military leadership, and even most major religious bodies (United Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc.).

      Wake up and get out while there is still a chance. Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction, less than one generation now.

  • Clete Torres

    You’d think that at some point, these people would figure out not to gift-wrap opportunities for Conservatives to assist them in their mission to make themselves appear the fools that they are.

    • therantinggeek

      What, and take away our fun while we continue to prove that Leftists are, for the most part, completely gormless? 😛

    • MissJames

      Well,who knew a bunch of old white men would be able to figure out a new fangled tech media like Twitter : D
      I will never get tired of seeing the words “Michelle Malkin Effect ” I might break down and get my first tattoo.

      • Guest

        Old white people pay the taxes that support your baby mamas brother. You should be thankful to us.

        • MissJames

          You do realize I was being sarcastic,right ,right ? Cuz the pro-aborts are always claiming it’s old white men who want to rule what they can do with their bodies?

          • Clete Torres

            Irony is lost on some, MJ.

      • Clete Torres

        Given time, we can figure out most anything except the fascination with wearing one’s britches so the crotch hangs down to the wearer’s knees. That looks really uncomfortable.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Devon-Dibley-His-Golden-Key/dp/1484181557/ M F Scotto

    Should have entered the 2012 race sooner than he did! #PissedAtPerry

  • Jessica

    I wonder if all these pro-abortionists think prostitution should be legalised? Her body, her choice right?

    • bicentennialguy

      Don’t you think some or most don’t.

    • MarcusFenix

      I say this as a person who would never actually use the service, but…

      I think that prostitution should be legal, to a point. I mean, Nevada already has it, and it hasn’t gone sideways on them yet.

      Using Nevada as a template….

      It’s a financial transaction/business decision between 2 consenting adults, with procedures and medical requirements in place to ensure (at least some) level of safety. After a quick read, I found that brothels must register with the county sheriff, and have tests that they require the prostitute to take both weekly and monthly for any sort of problems, and brothel owners can be held liable for any transmission of disease that occur. In all but 2 counties where it’s legal, workers must be over 21 (the other 2 having 18 years of age as the requirement). Google or Wikipedia (granted, it’s not 100% all the time, but it was a fast read- search Prostitution in Nevada for the one i read) would yield more information than I can put here.

      It generates revenue for the state in the form of taxes and the like. One county requires $100,000 per year per brothel, as a licensing fee, others are lower. It provides a safer service for those looking to partake in that kind of activity, for whatever reason, moreso than just picking up some random woman on the street or at a bar, and all parties involved get something they want. The woman is compensated for their time and services, and the man receives whatever he wanted out of the deal…companionship, some level of affection, no strings attached sex, whatever….everyone gains something from the transaction that they wanted. The pricing varies generally, but for specialty services and so forth, the charge can be as high (or higher?) than $10,000 per hour. The article stated a charge of $200 for 15 minutes was typical. In being blunt, the average person working a $12 dollar an hour job (and in some places that might be a pretty generous wage) would have to work an entire day to make the same amount of money one prostitute could make in 15 minutes, allowing for the fact that the house usually gets half of what is made.

      I’m not debating the moral implications, because that’s something for the individual to decide. I’m also not saying the system is perfect. But from a business standpoint, it’s really not that horrible of an idea. Just my 2 cents.

      • Finrod Felagund

        Indeed. No one has ever gotten any kind of STD from a legal brothel.

        • MarcusFenix

          At face value….it’s possible they have? I didn’t look up any stats for that, but it certainly wasn’t widely reported if its occured, so that’s a thing.

          • Lienathan

            “never” is probably not proveable, but it is fair to say that there are safeguards in place to make it rarer than unregulated street prostitution.

        • captaingrumpy

          And you would know????

          • Finrod Felagund

            Bite me, troll. Unless there’s been a case since the Penn & Teller _Bullshit!_ episode about it, no there hasn’t been.

      • KayGee

        but the bible say that’s bad! Still, upvoted your post because it makes perfect sense otherwise.

        • MarcusFenix

          I’m going to gingerly touch on this for a second, mainly because the Bible isn’t as direct about this subject as some others. I do thank you for the vote of confidence though. :)

          For instance, Rahab is considered highly, but she was a prostitute…and from all indications, never repented or removed herself from that profession. But the Scripture regards her pretty highly.

          There is also Tamar, who disguished herself as a prostitute…if you want to count that. Her seduction of Judah bore 2 children, which are listed in the Bible’s genealogy with regards to Christ’s bloodline.

          In being slighly picky, Matthew 21:31 also states that tax collectors and prostitutes “are entering heaven before you”, when Jesus was being questioned. He placed that statement in the affirmative, without qualifiers (other than the base qualifying ideas of repentance of sin and belief in Christ as savior…). One -could- take that to mean that it wasn’t a direct rebuke of the profession itself, i suppose.

          The Bible does state specifically about the practice of cult prostitutes, but..that could be considered a different matter, as that was for deity worship and less of an actual profession.

          Could be an interesting discussion. Just my 2 cents on that :)

          • Jessica

            I guess when you read the Bible, cherry picking is always a trap that you could fall in to. You’ve picked out several examples that could be construed as prostitution perhaps not being such a bad thing and I can pick out many more that would contradict that. As a Catholic, an undergraduate theology student and a teacher of religious education, I would first read up on the context of prostitution, see what the Church says about it and then read the Bible myself and make up my own mind.

            What all this comes down to is the act of sex. Sex is intrinsically good – it is the utmost expression of love and life. It has reproductive purposes and in fact it is the very first command God gives to man “Go forth and multiply” (I think there was something about gardening in there but it escapes me at the moment). So sex is good – given the right context. And the right context is the intention to multiply. I’m pretty sure prostitutes don’t intend to become pregnant with their client’s baby.

            But you are right in that scripture is a bit iffy about prostitution. But I think the most resounding story that comes from the NT in regards to prostitution is Jesus’ forgiving of a prostitute (I think they called her an adulterer in the bible but adulterer in that time basically means anyone who uses sex outside of the traditional marriage. Even if it doesn’t mean prostitution, it does mean sex outside of the traditional marriage). When she is forgiven he says “Go and sin no more”, implying that this was a sin.

            The whole thing about prostitution and any sex outside of the traditional marriage is that it’s a sin, yes, but God will forgive you if you repent.

          • MarcusFenix

            My intent wasn’t to really cherry pick, if thats the implication. I was pointing out that there were instances of prostitution in the Bible that weren’t demonized or made to look negative, or in cases like Rahab where that person was in fact raised up by the author, despite their profession. I also kind of resent the idea that you think I haven’t read the passages, couldn’t form my own conclusions, etc…if that’s not the case, then I apologize.

            As for what the Church thinks…there are many issues where I believe the Church, and organized religion as a whole, are off base or just plain wrong. That would be an entire subject matter in and of itself, however, and not within the scope of this discussion. For what is within the scope, I have read the passages previously. I referenced other areas of the Bible, made note of “changes” and editing done over the years, and made a decision based on what I felt was right. I’m fine with being factually corrected, but again….way too much time you’d have to spend doing it. Shoot me a message sometime outside of here and i’d discuss it with you, or anything else you prefer.

            I would nit pick the adulterer vs prostitute angle though. It is plainly stated that adultery is a sin, but…when you add in that prostitution gets a bit more blurry, that can cause problems. Add in the translation issues that might come along with it, and I’d say one could make a case for our other points.

            Again, too much depth we’d need to cover for a short space. Toss me a message sometime :)

          • Jessica

            That was totally not my intention and I am really sorry if you felt patronised in any way! Reading back over it I can see how it might seem condescending, but know that was not my intent.

            It’s funny that you should say, though, that you feelt the Church or its teachings are problematic as I feel that disregarding Church’s teachings is problematic – but like you said that is a conversation for another time.

            In terms of the adulterer/prostitute thing, I completely see your point of view and I would agree with it. What I would suggest, however, is that because sex is an act that is primarily for procreation and to be done by two consenting and married adults and prostitution does not fit within that category, then the act of having sex for money or partaking in any sexual activity for money is immoral and a sin.

            I tried messaging you but don’t know how. In any case, please know that I did not intend to patronise you in any way!

          • MarcusFenix

            It’s hard sometimes to tell what people are trying to get across at times, because text doesn’t really convey intent or emotion as much…usually, it’s easier to presume someone is being nasty, but I wasn’t sure, so i left the door open….no worries!

            I created a dummy account, email below, if you want to talk. It’s not my main email, but it’ll suffice. Might switch to my normal one later, after weeding out anyone who might get the address and spam me later, ya know?

            We can pick up where we left off there :)

            [email protected] will work for the moment.

      • trixiewoobeans

        It DID go kerflunk in Nevada when the Government took over a brothel and ran it…into the ground. They’re so inept they couldn’t even sell booze and sex profitably! I mean, COME ON! How stupid can they be? And they want to run our healthcare?

      • Jessica

        I completely understand what you are saying. I guess my issue with that is, you could say the same thing about any morally corrupt business. The opposition to anti-abortion, for example, would probably speak of overpopulation, taxpayers money and so forth. I guess what we have to decide is whether we should sacrifice our morals and values for a better life – life that is filled with intrinsic evils.

        • MarcusFenix

          I see where you’re coming from, and I can agree. It’s my opinion that most major industries and businesses are morally neutral, or even bankrupt for some. Businesses are in it to make money, and we can all point to many examples of things such as sweatshops, underpaid wages in other countries as well as our own, and a multitude of other questionable activities that are done for the sake of making a buck.

          One should be careful, however Ms. Jessica, with the sacrifice of morality. For example, above i stated that while i wouldn’t take up a service with a prostitute, I can see where other people would and why (in a business sense) that it isn’t a horrible idea. Morally, however, is a totally different path altogether. My moral objection to people doing that is separate from my observation.

          Likewise, when it comes to abortion, I’m fine with the practice in the cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. I am fine with strict regulation of the practice, such as the requirement it be done in surgically sound ways and that the person performing the procedure was in fact a licensed doctor with the right to practice at a hospital within say, a 75 mile radius. Because those particular sets of circumstances compose such a miniscule percentage of abortions, and emotionally I could find no fault with people making that decision in those circumstances, that part doesn’t bother me. People exterminating a fetus for convenience or money, on the other hand, is morally objectionable, regardless of any argument of overpopulation, financial support, etc. The people having an abortion for those reasons isn’t doing it out of self preservation for their own life, or to prevent an adding an emotional insult to an already painful emotional/physical injury. they are doing it out of being selfish. they don’t want to interrupt their lives.

          What I would offer is that, as people, we examine where we believe the moral lines in the sand should be, and stick to them as best we can. As we live and grow, we experience new things and learn. Our views change over time. But sacrificing your morals to try and deal with what you consider as pressure from other sources, or to deal with a life where people can be intrinsically evil…only serves to wear you down into a state where all you feel is entropy.

          stick to your guns, maam. Never compromise, when you believe you’re right.

          :)

          • Jessica

            Unfortunately whilst I agree with you on almost everything you’ve said (I still have some issues with the types of abortion you mentioned you would be relatively fine with), I think this hypothetical line in the sand is very dangerous – what is to stop someone from rubbing out that line altogether and drawing a new one? But there is no other alternative that I can think of. In a way I am reminded of the biblical narrative of Jericho and the genocide of the Canaanites.

          • MarcusFenix

            I popped my dummy email account to talk on this further, but…i’ll answer this part here too :)

            To wit, there really isn’t anything you can do to stop someone else, in their personal life, from moving, changing, or outright obliterating their moral lines in the sands. You can publicly protest and effect change via the law, or community programs, but ultimately, another person’s dividing line of morals (or principles) is their own. You can’t really force someone to adopt your morals (outside of how things such as laws might do so….), no more than they can force you to adopt theirs at face value.

            The important thing is that YOU don’t wipe those lines clean, or move them, without compelling reasons. It is incumbent upon you, as a person of faith, to stick to what you believe is right and what you feel the better portions of morality entails. As long as you’re doing that, no one can really rewrite your lines in the sand. It is important to built your house upon the rock first, rather than waiting to see if someone else builds theirs on the sand to point out the error.

            till later!

    • Finrod Felagund

      Not all prostitutes are women.

      • Clete Torres

        Just look at Rubio…

        • lainer51

          and John Edwards

          • Ronald Green

            He’s not prostitute, he’s a man whore. There is a difference.

    • MissJames

      Probably ,unless….wait,that would be men using women as sex objects,so ,wow ,a real conundrum for the libs . Great question!

  • lainer51

    #PissedAtPerry Why should anyone tell me when I can and cannot murder????????????????????????????????

    • Jessica

      How dare he! What a pig!

      • Damien Johnson

        What a misogynist member of the patriarchy exhorting his male privilege! Should be a woman governor then this wouldn’t happen at all!

    • tankgamer15

      It is not even close to murder since the fetus isn’t in full development.

      • Lienathan

        At 20 weeks a premature newborn can and have survived with medical intervention. Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception (which it does – it’s an identifiable individual of species homo sapiens with it’s own unique DNA from the moment of conception and is a living organism) to argue that that baby isn’t living and can’t therefore be killed is absurd in the extreme. You fail basic biology.

        • tankgamer15

          That is not basic biology.It is advance biology. Also while I dont like the fact of abortion it is a womens right to do what they want to do to their body.The government does not need to get involve in a persons life.Although is fetus can be used for stem cells to find a cure to an illness that can save a persons live. If that doesn’t work then maybe putting the child in adobtion could be a solution than getting a abortion.

          • Lienathan

            The woman’s rights end where another living beings rights begin and the right to live is the most fundamental of human rights. Women inherited the fundamental power to create life and they have an attendant responsibility to treat that power with respect for the consequences of their actions. And to head off the “but what about the guy” foolishness I also believe that a male who impregnates a woman is responsible to help care for the child and the mother, full stop. A Man does this without having to be told. Irresponsible behavior is the province of children and children require correction and guidance from responsible adults.

            That you even offered “That’s ‘advanced’ biology” as some sort of argument made me laugh and just shake my head. Foolishness. The basics of human childbirth and genetics were taught to me in BASIC biology, which just puts another nail in the coffin of public education if “how babies are made” is now considered ‘advanced’ science.

            As to stem cells, far better results and workable therapies have been found so far by use of adult stem cells. It is not ethical or responsible to harvest entire living human beings to be destroyed in the name of science, and the sooner we abandon methods that require the complete destruction of nascent human beings, the better.

          • tankgamer15

            I wasnt talking about the basics of childbirth and genetics I was talking about where the starting point where the heart starts to develop.I just cant believe your ignorance that not all states have the same learning pace. So you calling me a fool is not a way to condone.

          • Lienathan

            My thesis doesn’t rest on when certain structures develop. A human being is a human being and an individual from the moment of conception. Their DNA is unique from their mother, and from the beginning of the lifecycle there are only three possible outcomes: The child goes to term and is born alive; something goes wrong in their development and the child dies of natural causes; or the child is killed by some outside intervention. The third circumstance has been sanitized by the use of the term “Termination of pregnancy” – a convenient invention that allows the ignorant to marinate in the comfortable fiction that life isn’t life until somebody already living says it is. If you don’t want to be considered a fool, then don’t say foolish things.

            Edit to add: regardless, the cycle of development and childbirth was still covered in basic biology in my day. It’s sad that it’s now somehow considered an advanced topic.

          • tankgamer15

            I wasn’t saying anything foolish. I was talking about the development of the heart in a fetus. About the third circumstance I am not aware of it since I dont hear anything like that happening.

          • Lienathan

            I’m not even sure where you are going with this at this point. But let me see if I can sum up, here.
            A. I never called you a fool, I called the idea that the pregnancy cycle was ‘advanced’ biology foolishness. There’s a difference. Beyond that, when you open a debate by stating an irrelevant distinction rather than addressing the substance of the argument, you are leading with your chin. If you don’t want to have your arguments called ‘foolish’ then stick to the point and don’t wander off into irrelevancies.
            B. As I already stated, the stages of the development are moot as regards the simple fact that a new and distinct living organism has been created at the moment of conception. It simply doesn’t matter.
            C. The ‘third circumstance’ I cited is abortion. “I don’t hear anything like that happening” is an incoherent response when abortion is the matter at hand. Apparently you didn’t comprehend the post you were responding to. All I can tell you there is go back and read it again.

            You stated “it can’t be ‘murdered’ because it isn’t fully developed” (and by implication, not alive). I countered that at 20 weeks (where the bill in debate cuts off abortions) that babies can and have survived at that stage, and that regardless, the ‘fetus’ is a living organism at all stages of development. From there it either 1) is born 2) dies of natural causes or 3) is killed. Your opening response didn’t address my argument at all, you just said that I was wrong to call it basic biology. So far, you haven’t offered any convincing refutation to the argument that the developing child is alive and individual from conception. It doesn’t matter when the heart develops. That is not the point at which it is suddenly ‘alive’. Nor when brain activity begins, nor ‘quickening’, nor when it takes it’s first breath. Individual, seperate DNA, cells dividing and growing. It’s living. All the rest is lawyering.

          • tankgamer15

            Well first off I dont need to state your argument since I dont have anything to say about it since I am not against it. Second the third circumstance you said on the other comment didnt said it was abortion until I look at the comment again and it was meaning of abortion that is why I didnt know what you mean about termination of pregnancy.Third I didnt went off topic since I was only trying to tell you on what you said about basic biology and that I got thought the fetus cycle later on in biology.

          • Lienathan

            Well that’s fine then. It wasn’t all that long ago that the process of a pregnancy was 1st year science. It’s actually pretty sad that it’s somehow now ‘advanced’ material.
            What I responded to is the argument that you can’t kill an unborn baby. Since it’s alive from the moment of conception, that’s the only way to stop the pregnancy, is to kill it. People will argue how far into the pregnancy you’re allowed to kill it all day long, but it is disingenous, this assertion that we’re dealing with something ‘not alive’ until some arbitrary point in the pregnancy. Life is life. the opposite of alive = dead. Abortion = killing. Saying that the baby isn’t ‘alive’ until however far into the process is letting people off the hook for their actions.

          • tankgamer15

            Well I am pro-life and pro-choice but if a mother has a health risk and needs a abortion to do it then I can relate to that since I already happened somewhere in central america.

          • Lienathan

            A serious, physical threat to the mother sets up an unfortunate choice that has to be made. If the child is not viable outside the womb at that point, it only makes sense to choose in favor of the mother. In cases where the child is viable outside the womb, then all options to save both should be considered before an abortion is on the table. An abortion procedure is every bit as dangerous and probably more in some events than an induced delivery or C-section.
            ‘mental health’ exceptions as currently applied are entirely too broad and come down to ‘having the baby will make me feel bad’. I can’t support those without some concrete definitions of what we are discussing.

          • tankgamer15

            Well what if the person that says that is unemployed and a single mother ?

          • Lienathan

            Find a means of support or give the child up for adoption or make them a ward of the state. A couple of those options suck, but at least the child will have a chance to live. Life’s tough. Choices have consequences. Engaging in sexual relationships when one is not prepared to deal with the possibility of children is not being responsible. Birth control is not 100% effective. The only absolutely effective method is to not engage in intercourse at all. If the two partners feel the need to gratify each other, there are ways to do that where pregnancy is not a risk. There is an actual reason most major mainstream religious and other moral systems argue for no sex before marriage, and it’s not to be a ‘buzzkill’. The reason is to try to make sure two responsible adults are in a stable relationship before confronting the possiblity of getting pregnant. Sex, despite that it’s fun and feels good, isn’t something to be trifled with, and allowing the killing of the baby as an easy out only encourages further irresponsibility. We are supposed to be intelligent beings capable of higher reason. Don’t you think it’s sort of sick that we have to ask “well, when is ok to kill my baby so I don’t have to be responsible for it?” That’s the ultimate diseased thinking that results from trying to draw this line.

          • tankgamer15

            Its funny since JayJCee did said that women should get birth control if they dont want to get pregnant. Also people have sex before marriage anyway and don’t get the women pregnant because of protection. But there is change that it wont get the pregnant proof.

          • Finrod Felagund

            Well I am pro-life and pro-choice …

            You can’t be both, cretin.

          • tankgamer15

            Yes you can be both.But I am talking about the me accepting people to have life and to have people to have their own choices in life.

          • MissJames

            Maybe the problem with your argument on this particular Subject is,you seem to be arguing about early abortions ( which I oppose) but this thread is about Libs who don’t want to let a bill get voted on that would not allow abortions IN TEXAS,after 20 weeks. The law is based on scientific evidence that at 20 weeks and above it’s proven the babies/fetuses feel pain.
            Gov Perry has called for a second
            Round to vote on the bill,thus the libs #pissedatperry

          • tankgamer15

            I thought the bill was to close several abortion clinics in texas ?

          • MissJames

            From the L.A. Times article :

            http://www.latimes.com/news/local/lanow/la-me-robin-abcarian-perspective-20130402,0,101211.storygallery

            While many thought that Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’ bold filibuster killed the bill outlawing abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation, it merely served to postpone what many think is inevitable: the passage of yet another state measure restricting abortion and creating an insurmountable regulatory obstacle for all but five of the state’s 42 abortion clinics, by requiring them to offer the same level of care as ambulatory surgery centers.

          • Jessica

            When your heart stops beating after you’re dead, do you cease to be human? When your dead, do you give me permission to tear you apart limb from limb, drop your body in a tub of acid and say ‘who cares, he’s not really a person anyway’? I see what I just done to you as the lesser evil between this and abortion. Why? Because you are dead. You’ve stopped living, you’ve stopped growing. If you grow, you live. Your essence has left this world and even though the vandalism of your body is beyond repugnant, I haven’t taken your life and you haven’t felt pain. When a child is conceived they have their very own unique DNA – who cares what they look like or what body parts they have, they’re HUMAN!

          • tankgamer15

            Well I am not in favor of abortion I was just stating fetus process when they have all organs and a skeletal structure when the child is in the womb.

          • Jessica

            Oh, I’m sorry! I probably should have read the context instead of relying on the up and down little arrow things LOL

          • MissJames

            Then why would you say it’s not even close to murder? That sounds like you support abortion to me.

          • tankgamer15

            That is before I learned about the fetus process. I didnt know about the weekly cycle of the fetus. Also I while I kinda did support it only for the development of stem cells so it can be used for cancer and other illness. I just realized that adult stem cells is much better for the treatment of cancer and other illness. But I do support pro choice since it is the rights of human being to be able what is right and wrong,and the decisions of what he/or she can watch and eat.

          • Lienathan

            The woman’s rights end where another living beings rights begin and the right to live is the most fundamental of human rights. Women inherited the fundamental power to create life and they have an attendant responsibility to treat that power with respect for the consequences of their actions. And to head off the “but what about the guy” foolishness I also believe that a male who impregnates a woman is responsible to help care for the child and the mother, full stop. A Man does this without having to be told. Irresponsible behavior is the province of children and children require correction and guidance from responsible adults.

            That you even offered “That’s ‘advanced’ biology” as some sort of argument made me laugh and just shake my head. Foolishness. The basics of human childbirth and genetics were taught to me in BASIC biology, which just puts another nail in the coffin of public education if “how babies are made” is now considered ‘advanced’ science.

            As to stem cells, far better results and workable therapies have been found so far by use of adult stem cells. It is not ethical or responsible to harvest entire living human beings to be destroyed in the name of science, and the sooner we abandon methods that require the complete destruction of nascent human beings, the better.

          • JayJCee

            How about the woman choosing not to get pregnant in the first place? We’re now supposed to provide free birth control to any woman who wants it so what’s the problem? Look at the statistics on WHY women have abortions and you will see fear for the health of the mother is #8 on the list, and rape and incest aren’t even listed in the top 8. How hard can it possibly be to take precautions before hand? Pro abortion harpies want to have it both ways – it’s a baby when I want it, but when I don’t, it’s a clump of cells.

          • tankgamer15

            While I don’t condone abortion if you just don’t want a child.A women who has a health problem my be eligible to have a abortion then.Also tell them in their faces on why they choose to not to get pregnant then not to me.

          • JayJCee

            The reason I replied to you is because you’re the one who stated it’s a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body. If a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant, common sense dictates that she would take steps to keep from getting pregnant in the first place. I’m merely pointing out the absurdity of the pro-abortion mindset. When backed into a corner they always come at you with the rape/incest argument. When you look at statistics, that excuse isn’t even among the top 8.

          • tankgamer15

            But still even if they do there are other solutions than abortion when it is a rape victim.

          • JayJCee

            We agree on that and they do not include murder.

          • MarcusFenix

            As a side note, i would point out something…

            If people in general can do what they want with their bodies, then why can a person be locked up for attempting suicide? It’s their body, their life…they want it over, so….why stop them? If we are ok with a woman terminating life at whatever stage in the womb, why not make it ok to terminate life at some other point? The logic doesn’t add up.

          • tankgamer15

            While they dont lock up someone trying to attempt suicide they do send them to a psychology or a suicide prevention place.Also the thing you said about ending the life at some point already exists it’s call a death penalty.

          • Clete Torres

            Do neither of the examples you give fit the definition of being held against your will, or ‘locked up?’

            Yes they do.

          • MissJames

            They do put people who attempt suicide into a locked unit at a medical facility and hold them against their will. The person can’t leave or get out or even call the police to rescue them . They are locked up ,for their own good,maybe,but locked,never the less.
            Did you find this site by accident while you were gaming and get confused,because I’m having a hard time following your position on this issue. You’re all over the place .

          • tankgamer15

            Yes I found this by bing when they had those links down the site that was recently searched and I click on the minnesota guy that call the supreme court judge “Uncle Tom”. Then when I look at the article and some other articles they all had the same conservative tone. So I wiki search and found the founders page and a description of this site.Anyway about the locking up statement. Isn’t it illegal to force someone in there that is calling for police ?

          • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

            POINT (And GOLD STAR), MARCUS! #RIGHTWARD Jawamax 8<{D}

        • tankgamer15

          That is not basic biology.It is advance biology. Also while I dont like the fact of abortion it is a womens right to do what they want to do to their body.The government does not need to get involve in a persons life.Although is fetus can be used for stem cells to find a cure to an illness that can save a persons live. If that doesn’t work then maybe putting the child in adobtion could be a solution than getting a abortion.

      • Robin Rountree

        Ok dumb ass 24 weeks a baby can live outside the womb some have even been earlier and lived and these nut jobs in Texas want it up to at least 20 weeks so what are you talking about

      • AMSilver

        Looks like you agree with the head of ethics at Princeton. He acknowledges that 2 year olds aren’t fully developed, and admits that your logic means there’s no real objection to killing a child up to 2 years old. Of course, a human’s brain (and body) continues important developments into their 3rd decade, so based on your logic, it should be okay for a mother to kill her child up into their early 20s. We also develop in various ways throughout our lives, and it would be pretty much impossible to pinpoint the one point in time where our body is fully developed. And after that, it starts degrading, at which point we can start the next argument that since the body is already dieing, it is permissible to speed up the process.

        • tankgamer15

          But I wasnt talking about killing a 20 year old. What I meant is that the fetus has develop a skeletal structure and all the organs it is needed in which case it is not acceptably correct to have the abortion.

          • Ronald Green

            Honestly, your argument is painful to read simply because of your poor grammar. If you wish to make an intelligent statement, it must be stated intelligently. Either slow down and proof read what you type or stop humiliating yourself. I think you are against abortion when it comes after fetal viability, which can be proven to be at 20 weeks. If that is so, simply state it and have done with it.

          • Ronald Green

            You down voting my comment doesn’t make it not true.

          • tankgamer15

            I wasn’t humiliating myself at any point in my comment.Also why do you bother if I already stated it in the comment.You just repeating what I said. By the way I am not down voting your comment because everything you said was untrue just the humiliating part.

          • Ronald Green

            “What I meant is” -> What I mean is , or.. What I meant was…

            “that the fetus has develop a skeletal structure” -> that the fetus has developed a skeletal structure….

            “all the organs it is needed” -> all the organs it needs… these are just in your previous comment.

            Like I said, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to present yourself correctly; otherwise people just laugh at you. I am not trying to put you down, quite the contrary, I am trying to help you. If you accept that help or not is entirely up to you.

          • tankgamer15

            I already commented you on your other comment.

          • Ronald Green

            Well…. I guess it just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

          • tankgamer15

            I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with you.

          • Squirrel!

            The comments are painful to read & make sense of. Honestly was thinking that the paid trolls are being outsourced.

          • Ronald Green

            You may be right, but I think he’s on the pro life side of it. It’s just kinda hard to figure out what he’s saying.

          • Squirrel!

            Very hard! And I couldn’t figure it out for the mostpart but sounds like prolife after a certain point which IMO is twisted but everyone is different. Maybe trying to figure some things out to know where he or she stands for him or herself? Idk. It’s life. Period. I’ve had 3 children. Never at any time did I refer to them as zygotes or fetuses. They were always babies no matter where they were in development. I really don’t understand the anti-life stance, but I guess i’d have to think like that to understand.

          • Ronald Green

            To understand them you would need to be a self absorbed, selfish, sorry, pompous excuse of a human being. I’m glad you’re not, too many of them already.

      • lainer51

        How is life in prison for your Dad Kermit?

      • Damien Johnson

        well since your intelligence is obviously not fully developed, it should be perfectly fine to deem you useless and murder you.

        • tankgamer15

          It is not even relative to what I said.

          • Damien Johnson

            no, I was making a point.

          • tankgamer15

            Whatever.

      • MissJames

        Like my son,who was born at 25 weeks? He’s 11 years old now. It’s murder. Go watch one ,then come back and tell us.

        • tankgamer15

          I wasn’t referring to children already born but rather the fetus process. Besides I already covered that one in a another comment.

          • MissJames

            You can’t get away from the fact that the same child /baby/fetus whatever you choose to deflect with,is the same being . He was only 25 weeks gestation wether he was inside or outside the womb. Same child that could have been snipped apart with scissors. What you call him doesn’t change that.

          • tankgamer15

            First off I don’t like someone getting a abortion. Like I said someone else commented me on that. Also I never said anything to him since I talk about him.

  • Danny Wheeler

    YES!

  • Stephen L. Hall

    This isn’t difficult to understand, the written word and radio require engaged thought, that is why conservatives excel on Twitter and Talk-Radio, liberals are consigned to emotionally driven media like music, tv and movies.

  • RememberSekhmet

    I don’t understand Texas law regarding special sessions! I was stupid enough to think Rick Perry couldn’t call another session! #PissedAtPerry

  • FilleGitane

    Of all the issues to try to grandstand. Late-term abortion has virtually no public support but these ridiculous people think it’s a winner.

    • nc

      But remember, these nitwits built the Dem convention around it last year.

  • Lisa Dean

    You mean Wendy Davis isn’t as smart as the libs thought she was. #pissedatperry

  • RememberSekhmet

    Post-menopausal cat ladies who last ovulated when Reagan was in office know more about my sex life than the damn men I sleep with! #PissedAtPerry

    • lainer51

      that is pathetic but just be very careful that you NEVER sleep with a liberal….

  • RememberSekhmet

    Support Kermit Gosnell and Jerry Karpen! #PissedAtPerry

  • nc

    How dare he find a way around our cheating, screaming mob tactic? #PissedAtPerry

  • RememberSekhmet

    *serious* Should have cut back on the pain meds during the debates, and kicked Romney’s butt in the 2012 primaries #PissedAtPerry

  • twolaneflash

    America, having allowed LastNameUnknown to usurp the highest office in the land, twice, can shed Itself of the last shred of hope that any future elections will have anything to do with the will of The People, the rule-of-law, or retaining The Republic as Our form of governance. For all the mob-rule Government stakeholders, the scales have been weighted irreversibly in their favor. The Entitled with not give up their ObamaPhones, ObamaCare, Obama$tash, ObamaWorship. The SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other community organizers against The People will not give up their pie and power. The Career Politicians have a stranglehold on Taxpayers and have abandoned their duty and oath, opening the borders, immigration patterns, and payments to the barbarians who would live off the dying carcass of America. The Media are complicit and guilty as hell in this Marxist coup and deserve what they’ve got coming. Until then, I keep a weather-eye on the horizon & I’m cleaning my gun:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhc7YsGJ1vk

  • Savage65

    Let’s all hope that the Tea Party and social conservatives win in 2014.

    • Clete Torres

      From your lips to God’s ears.

  • Savage65

    Let’s all hope that the Tea Party and social conservatives win in 2014.

  • ntxokie

    Almost makes me want to go out and tweet up a storm..

  • Stephan Dueboay

    Libs will argue that a one-celled blob of green crud in the bottom of a creek in Podunk, USA is a viable life form the instant that it starts moving around. But a constantly changing, living, cell-dividing, breathing being that will eventually become a human, is just “tissue” until they decide when it’s a “living being”.

    I don’t get the logic that the majority of libs want to kill the unborn, but save the murderers, rapists and serial killers on death row. Me thinks they were dropped on their heads as babies or were survivors of a failed life-ending procedure during their moms pregnancy.

    One last thing libs, call your mom today and thank her that she was pro-life…

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      STEPHAN WINS A GOLD STAR! #RightWard Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Tommy

    Women already know that aborting an unborn, defenseless child is no less than murder itself.

    They make this point every time they seek to redefine the victims legal classification from that of a human being to something lower and undeserving of human dignity, like some unwarranted, non vital bodily function or malignant growth.

    It’s how guilt allows the atrocities one commits against life to rationalize the barbarism over their conscious.

    Because who would give little thought over the removal of a collection of “cells” (fetus) like they’d otherwise would in regard to a human child. It’s all a grand lie as liberals have to label this unborn child as inhuman to ease the actuality of it being murder.

    Liberals are always contradicting. They protest animal rights, equality, civility and freedom. Yet they slaughter human babies, politicize away all their rights, cast them as unequal to the life of any animal, snap their spines like barbarians and deny them the very basic freedom all of creation. . Life.

    Abortion is and will always be an act of barbaric murder. An act of inhumanity and an affront to God and every civilized world.

    But liberals will be judged for their pro murder actions just like all of humanity. They can not mob their way around that judgment nor can they throw out the race card. In the end they will have to answer to a higher power.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      TOMMY-WINNER OF ANOTHER GOLD STAR! #RightWard Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Jeremy

    I love the conservative sarcastic tweets giving them liberal whiners a taste of their own medicine.

  • Damien Johnson

    A man who’s anti-abortion, and for a natural process where a child exits the womb of a woman; a sexist and a misogynist.

    A man who is pro-abortion, and for a man-made invasive and harmful process where a child, possibly female, is sucked out of a womb and torn to pieces, then the woman’s reproductive systems are adversely affected; Somehow, not a sexist.

  • http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/ keyboard jockey

    This is what 20 weeks pregnant looks like 20 weeks = 5 months. When regular people hear 20 weeks pregnant they can’t relate that’s what the pro aborts want. Pro Life folks shouldn’t use their terminology or measurements of time. A picture is worth a thousand words. What human being thinks that killing a baby 5 months along in the womb is acceptable?

    • armyman62

      You need to rethink your question.

      Libs don’t have an issue with it because they are not human therefore your question ” What human being thinks that killing a baby 5 months along in the womb is acceptable” is moot.

      The real question should read, when will the humans on this planet rid ourselves of the masquerading vermin that are trying to corrupt us?

  • gun_nut

    We need to get better at this social media thing. The liberals own it because most of us old enough to know better are techno-dinosaurs.

  • Chris Chambers

    Let’s protect the Snail Darter (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-snail-darter-and-the-dam-zygmunt-jan-broel-plater/1113215412?ean=9780300173246) but not a 24 week old human fetus!
    Earliest preemie supposedly born and lived at 21 weeks, but at 28 weeks has a 90 % (+/-) chance to survive.
    Which would you choose? The human fetus or the snail darter? (I pick humanity.)

  • therantinggeek

    Nice try, but thanks for playing anyway. :)

  • therantinggeek

    Nice try, but thanks for playing anyway. :)

  • tankgamer15

    I wasnt playing.

  • tankgamer15

    I wasnt playing.

  • vphilly

    Look again, fvckwit.

  • Ronald Green

    lost anyway.

  • therantinggeek

    See your previous comment? Oh, wait… 😛

  • tankgamer15

    Still not playing.

  • Ronald Green

    I beg to differ, you’re still posting with your poor grammar.

  • Ronald Green

    Look it’s another lib / Nazis come to tell us we’re all wrong.

  • tankgamer15

    I dont see any poor grammar in my comment so your statement is invalid. I am going to ignore you since you’re just a grammar Nazi.

  • MissJames

    Since your comment was deleted it’s a moot point,really.

  • Ronald Green

    Okay sport, I was more or less on your side of it but you’re too dumb to see it.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    Cry me a river, BD! RONALD WINS THE BUBBLE GUM CIGAR TODAY! Jawamax 8<{D}

  • tankgamer15

    I dont believe you since this is a conservative website and a majority of the people commenting here are also conservative. Also if you’re on my side then should have said so before.

  • Ronald Green

    Thought you were going to ignore me? I don’t care what you don’t believe. That’s your problem.

  • VetOnFire

    so naaa, guess he told you!

  • tankgamer15

    I was ignoring you but you manage to tell me I am dumb and you are still commenting me.