Qanon -The Storm

[Orange_Crush]

Oof, where to begin?

A. Had you paid attention, I clearly noted that my comment was off topic - I included that as to imply to the reader that I was specifically not attempting to strawman NGV's point.
2. My post had nothing to do with "rights" at all. This is a point you're attempting to shoehorn in, my focus was only about the disconnect of the values for the sanctity of "life" between the pro-life crowd and the "pro-gun" crowd (for lack of a better term).
Third, non sequitur. Like the previous attempt to misrepresent my argument , I never suggested what you've implied.
Lastly, ead.

Thor...

Edit: It makes me wonder if the "conservatives" would agree to trade a complete gun ban for complete abortion ban. Outside of the obvious challenges in implementation, I doubt few would agree to it.

You're screeching. God, you squirm when you're called out.

You tried to make a false equivalency between arguing against abortion (the taking of an innocent life) and arguing for 2A rights during mass shooting discussions (arguing against taking the rights to keep and bear arms from innocent citizens). Off topic or not, it was a stupid argument.

And I spoke to your "sanctity of life" mistake when I pointed out that we support laws against killing babies and laws against mass shootings. As such, we support both the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the rights of the innocent (2A), which are both similarly based.

It was a stupid argument. I'd initially written it off to your trolling, as I considered you smarter than this, but the more you dig, the more you own the stupidity of the argument as legitimately yours.

 

[Septic]

You're screeching. God, you squirm when you're called out.

You tried to make a false equivalency between arguing against abortion (the taking of an innocent life) and arguing for 2A rights during mass shooting discussions (arguing against taking the rights to keep and bear arms from innocent citizens). Off topic or not, it was a stupid argument.

And I spoke to your "sanctity of life" mistake when I pointed out that we support laws against killing babies and laws against mass shootings. As such, we support both the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the rights of the innocent (2A), which are both similarly based.

It was a stupid argument. I'd initially written it off to your trolling, as I considered you smarter than this, but the more you dig, the more you own the stupidity of the argument as legitimately yours.

Bravo on the effort to spin the ill advised attempt to misrepresent my statement, insisting you aren't strawmanning won't change that. My argument wasn't about rights, no matter how hard you want it to be.

That said, is the end result in taking an innocent life through abortion different from taking an innocent life through a mass shooting? Don't answer that, we both know it isn't. Which is the point that you keep making attempting an end run around; the same people who cry about abortions, whistle past the graveyard when it comes to gun violence - pretending that innocent lives matter is a farce.

You whiffed badly on this ham fisted attempt to 'call me out', I've come to expect more out of you. Disappointing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Bravo on your attempt to spin the ill advised attempt to misrepresent my statement, insisting you aren't strawmanning won't change that. My argument wasn't about rights, no matter how hard you want it to be.

That said, is the end result in taking an innocent life through abortion different from taking an innocent life through a mass shooting? Don't answer that, we both know it isn't. Which is the point that you keep making attempting an end run around; the same people who cry about abortions, whistle past the graveyard when it comes to gun violence - pretending that innocent lives matter is a farce.

You whiffed badly on this ham fisted attempt to 'call me out', I've come to expect more out of you. Disappointing.

The argument is absolutely about rights. To try to reframe it is just proving you're guilty of misrepresenting arguments, just as I said. The argument you're mocking is that no one has the right to take an innocent baby's life. The other side, which you;re trying to provide as antitheitcal to the abortion position, is that no one has the right to disarm innocent citizens. Those are two affirming positions.

You're trying to muddy that with the "sanctity of life" argument, and I've dealt with it. We also believe that mass shootings fall into the argument that no one has the right to do bad things to innocent people. They don't have the right to kill innocent people. We're against that. Just like abortion.

So, we're rationally consistent.

You're just making a straw man, claiming that we should be against abortion by any means necessary, and against mass shootings by any means necessary. But we're not. We aren't against abortion by means of forced mass sterilization, and we're not against mass shootings at the expense of disarming innocent people.

But at the end of the day, neither argument is against the sanctity of life. We're against abortion. We're against mass shootings.

You're painting a caricature of our argument. You're thinking bluntly.

Whether by trolling or just your own poor thinking, you're off base.

 

[ajvol01]

Oof, where to begin?

A. Had you paid attention, I clearly noted that my comment was off topic - I included that as to imply to the reader that I was specifically not attempting to strawman NGV's point.
2. My post had nothing to do with "rights" at all. This is a point you're attempting to shoehorn in, my focus was only about the disconnect of the values for the sanctity of "life" between the pro-life crowd and the "pro-gun" crowd (for lack of a better term).
Third, non sequitur. Like the previous attempt to misrepresent my argument , I never suggested what you've implied.
Lastly, ead.

Thor...

Edit: It makes me wonder if the "conservatives" would agree to trade a complete gun ban for complete abortion ban. Outside of the obvious challenges in implementation, I doubt few would agree to it.

More moronic nonsense.

A constitutional amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

A controversial SCOTUS ruling decriminalized abortion.

You don’t understand the difference?

 

[Septic]

More moronic nonsense.

A constitutional amendment guarantees the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

A controversial SCOTUS ruling decriminalized abortion.

You don’t understand the difference?

Again, my argument isn't about rights. It's really shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around this, you and OC are doing your damndest to extrapolate out what I'm implying in a way that it's easier to topple. Stop, it's not going to work.

Your ilk asserts that life, above all else is sacred but no one's ever seen a conservative picketing a gun shop after a mass casualty, that has remained the only point. I'd wager if it came down to it and choices had to be made and as you've already tried to handicap, the sanctimonious 'right' wouldn't trade firearms for an abortion ban.

 

[ajvol01]

Again, my argument isn't about rights. It's really shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around this, you and OC are doing your damndest to extrapolate out what I'm implying in a way that it's easier to topple. Stop, it's not going to work.

Your ilk asserts that life, above all else is sacred but no one's ever seen a conservative picketing a gun shop after a mass casualty, that has remained the only point. I'd wager if it came down to it and choices had to be made and as you've already tried to handicap, the sanctimonious 'right' wouldn't trade firearms for an abortion ban.

What is the purpose of a firearm?

What is the purpose of an abortion?

 

[Septic]

The argument is absolutely about rights. To try to reframe it is just proving you're guilty of misrepresenting arguments, just as I said. The argument you're mocking is that no one has the right to take an innocent baby's life. The other side, which you;re trying to provide as antitheitcal to the abortion position, is that no one has the right to disarm innocent citizens. Those are two affirming positions.

You're trying to muddy that with the "sanctity of life" argument, and I've dealt with it. We also believe that mass shootings fall into the argument that no one has the right to do bad things to innocent people. They don't have the right to kill innocent people. We're against that. Just like abortion.

So, we're rationally consistent.

You're just making a straw man, claiming that we should be against abortion by any means necessary, and against mass shootings by any means necessary. But we're not. We aren't against abortion by means of forced mass sterilization, and we're not against mass shootings at the expense of disarming innocent people.

But at the end of the day, neither argument is against the sanctity of life. We're against abortion. We're against mass shootings.

You're painting a caricature of our argument. You're thinking bluntly.

Whether by trolling or just your own poor thinking, you're off base.

It would appear that irrespective of how many times I correct your misrepresentation of my statement, you are going to to try to reinvent what you wanted it to mean - if that makes you feel better about the hypocrisy, that's a you problem.

 

[Septic]

What is the purpose of a firearm?

What is the purpose of an abortion?

Not relevant to my statement, belaboring my point to be an attack on firearms is an exercise in futility. For what it's worth, I support the 2a and I've never suggested this argument is a referendum on it.

 

[ajvol01]

Not relevant to my statement, belaboring my point to be an attack on firearms is an exercise in futility. For what it's worth, I support the 2a and I've never suggested this argument is a referendum on it.

You lost the argument and you can’t admit it.

A gun’s purpose is not to kill. If that was true there wouldn’t be 300+ million people alive in this country. There are more guns than people in this country.

An abortion’s purpose is to end the life of an unborn baby.

Explain to me again how I’m ignorant. This should be good.

 

[ajvol01]

Abortion statistics

Abortion Statistics - American Life League

Abortion Statistics
Current United States Data*

• Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2013: 56.5 million+
• 219 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)
• Abortions per year: 1.058 million
• Abortions per day: 2,899
• Abortions per hour: 120
• 1 abortion every 30 seconds

These statistics include only surgical and medical abortions.

 

[hjeagle1vol]

[VIDEO=]

 

[Septic]

You lost the argument and you can’t admit it.

A gun’s purpose is not to kill. If that was true there wouldn’t be 300+ million people alive in this country. There are more guns than people in this country.

An abortion’s purpose is to end the life of an unborn baby.

Explain to me again how I’m ignorant. This should be good.

I can't understand it for you dude. It's not about the gunz, it's about the faux outrage over some innocent lives being snuffed out and zero outrage over others. Again, you keep claiming victory over arguments I'm not making, if that's me losing the argument - good call.

 

[ajvol01]

I can't understand it for you dude. It's not about the gunz, it's about the faux outrage over some innocent lives being snuffed out and zero outrage over others. Again, you keep claiming victory over arguments I'm not making, if that's me losing the argument - good call.

If you can’t acknowledge/understand the difference in the numbers of lives being discussed then I don’t know what to say.

I even posted the abortion stats to simplify it for you.

Opposing abortion has a much higher likelihood of saving lives than protesting outside a firearms dealer.

It’s common sense.

All lives are equally important, but the odds of saving a life are not equal. As you like to say - “false equivalency”.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Will be Indicted


prayingmedic


Published on Sep 12, 2019

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Slightly off topic but truthfully, it rings hollow given that the people who chirp the most over abortions are the same one that shrug and say "whatta you gonna do?" when mass casualties occur. If "life" is the only factor that truly matters, then some consistency in action and outrage would be equal or at least closer to congruency. I've never seen anyone that pickets a planned parenthood also picketing a gun store. When that starts to happen, the pro-life crowd may get some veneration.

I'm having a problem with drawing congruence between the two, I wouldn't picket either. Im more live and let live, natural selection works, personal responsibility and leave me to live my lawful life kinda girl. My sphere of positive influence is with my family, my patients and my coworkers. That is the amount of control i have over others. It only works if they are open to it.
I don't feel outrage at abortions or mass casualties. I feel empathy and compassion for all involved.
On the other hand let someone harm an innocent in my presence and I'm that freak that will go to jail over it.

 

[ajvol01]

This is totally normal. Nothing to see here

 

[ajvol01]

 

[ajvol01]

Very interesting

Behind The Illusion; George Clooney | Tiffany FitzHenry

 

[ajvol01]

Nothing to see here

 

[ajvol01]

I can't understand it for you dude. It's not about the gunz, it's about the faux outrage over some innocent lives being snuffed out and zero outrage over others. Again, you keep claiming victory over arguments I'm not making, if that's me losing the argument - good call.

Here’s an example of what’s causing what you characterize as “faux outrage”.

Pure evil.

 

[volfanhill]

So Q is now all things molestation and PP? How’s everyone going to jail going? The only thing Trump seems to be draining are his own appointments.

 

[tennvols77]

Nothing to see here

That's 2 sick pos who hopefully are being visited by police and soon headed to general population. Disgusting pos who I hope meet a violent and painful end.

 

[ajvol01]

So Q is now all things molestation and PP? How’s everyone going to jail going? The only thing Trump seems to be draining are his own appointments.

If you tried reading the Q drops yourself it might actually make sense.

QMAP: Qanon Drops & POTUS Tweets

First reference to PP was in January 7, 2018.


493
Planned Parenthood is Sick!
Q!UW.yye1fxo7 Jan 2018 - 3:33:45 AM

Anonymous7 Jan 2018 - 3:27:17 AM
>>13497
Then we need to dig Planned Parenthood. Whatever they're doing to babies/fetal tissue might be more sinister than ever imagined!

>>13534
Review the Congressional investigation on PP.
Be prepared for what you learn.
Next question - how are they allowed to operate?
These people are SICK!
Q

495
House Investigation Planned Parenthood
Q!UW.yye1fxo7 Jan 2018 - 3:41:41 AM

Anonymous7 Jan 2018 - 3:38:06 AM

2b9221b3dc8a728ca716710b70c8807b60b8ae9bdfb1d731d56076efda4a3676.png

862ed34c0fce4badefd0fec5e815463883fbe64eb1819afc8d2f3e1025fb1cf8.png
House Investigation into Planned Parenthood

www.gop. gov/solution_content/plannedparenthood/

>>13655
Mark as graphic material.
Q

909
Planned Parenthood is EVIL
Q!UW.yye1fxo10 Mar 2018 - 12:39:46 PM

Anonymous10 Mar 2018 - 12:34:36 PM
>>612417

(((Planned Parenthood)))

>>612799
Review Congressional investigation.
Re_read drops PP.
We are working to END.
EVIL.
Not as it appears.
Q

1253
Planned Parenthood DOJ Investigation Sale of Fetal Tissue
Q!xowAT4Z3VQ23 Apr 2018 - 10:56:53 PM
Grassley Refers Planned Parenthood, Fetal Tissue Procurement Organizations to FBI, Justice Dept. for Investigation | Chuck Grassley
Planned Parenthood under investigation by Justice Department over sale of fetal tissue
Coming soon.
Q

2398
Con Game: Planned Parenthood Redirects Tax Payer Funding Back to D Party
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI3 Nov 2018 - 3:09:12 PM
[D] Party Con:
When you can't raise money 'organically' through party (individual) donations (voter base) YOU STEAL IT from the American taxpayer and give it back to yourself in the form of campaign contributions.
[Example 1]
Planned Parenthood
Health Care Funding: Federal Obligations to and Expenditures by Selected Organizations Involved in Health-Related Activities, Fiscal Years 2013-2015
$1.5 billion provided in taxpayer funding over 3-year period.
[Case 1]
PP spent $30 million [disclosed - real estimates close to $65 million] in taxpayer subsidies to influence the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections.
[Conclusion]
Should it be legal for a taxpayer [D+R+I] funded organization to donate massive amounts of money to the D party in an effort to sway an election?
D_insider_term: T_WASH
Re_read drops re: Soros & taxpayer funding
YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.
VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
Q

2674
D's Pushing to Legalize Late-term Abortions / Infanticide
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI1 Feb 2019 - 1:22:24 PM

7e46c1e5fb461a234ba37620e46b574fef69e2f76e6ee21af9e403ca46ff32ed.jpg
Last post before going dark?
Re: [PP]?
What events followed that post?
Coincidence?
Anons understand.
Q

2686
The Focus Is on the Planned Parenthood Organization Itself
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI10 Feb 2019 - 8:24:09 PM
Child Sex Trafficking Cover Up | Live Action
Why do D's push to fund [PP] using taxpayer dollars ($500m/year)?
Where does the money go?
Past political donations of [PP]?
What is the process of disposal re: aborted fetus?
What regulations (who monitors) are in place to ensure that process is being followed?
Why is there a new push by D's to legalize late term abortions?
See past drops re: [PP] re: Congressional report (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
This has nothing to do w/ a woman's right to choose (tactic they deploy when challenged to activate liberals/media hysteria).
The focus is on the organization itself.
Power Couples - Kirk Adams & Cecile Richards
Ask yourself a very simple question:
Given the amount of evidence demonstrating illegal & disturbing activities by [PP]- where is the FBI investigation?
Planned Parenthood under investigation by Justice Department over sale of fetal tissue
[RR][MCCABE]
What senior political officials are providing cover to [PP]?
Will action be taken by DOJ/FBI?
2019?
Q

 

[MontyPython]

why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

[ajvol01]

why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

Rachel Maddow pushed the Russian collusion hoax for 3 years and made millions.

I’ve got a better question.

With all the known examples of false reporting over the past 10 years, why do people continue to trust the mainstream media?