newtboy said:

No, they absolutely are not.
Christians have murdered more people in the name of their religion than any other groups for any other reasons.
Duh.

newtboy said:

So, to paraphrase, Forget legality, forget definition, forget reality, I want to call it murder so I will.
What utter infantile nonsense.

Texas doesn't call it murder, so they can't execute anyone. In fact, if I read it right, they just fine you like a traffic ticket. The legal consequences prove you're alone in calling it murder, the fact that you don't think execution is the right outcome for every person involved from the doctors and nurses to the taxi drivers all the way to the mothers should be executed proves you don't think it's murder either, you just like to exaggerate.

The unborn are not human beings by definition or by law, not even by religious definition or law, so murder is impossible. That is by all definitions and by all laws. Get over it. You're simply wrong and have to fudge definitions, the law, religious teachings, and all logic and reason to make the arguments you're making.

It's clear you didn't read the article @noseeem linked for you. You really should.

vil said:

I dont mean you personally, I mean other christians?

Do you and they have perscribed opinions?

noseeem said:

Now it's not so easy.

Even TX recognizes women can terminate a pregnancy. They just decided to game the system to make it difficult to obtain in TX.

It's not murder.

But - in your mind - if mother and daughter drive to another state, one of them have the procedure, then returned, the daughter and mother, are now murderers. TX can execute them. If the doctor and staff that performed the termination are known and enter TX they are murderers also. They can be killed by the state, too.

Nope. Not that easy.

Because it is not murder.

Let this guy make that case: https://tinyurl.com/ma4sjz3v

Thanks for your honesty. And responding. So many just spout and run out.

vil said:

Are all christians like this?

noseeem said:

So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word.

You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough.

You'd be against reporting people that aid in getting the women into a state that is allows the legal procedure - right? Fall off the log easy.

So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right?

And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy.

So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?

They don't like it. They can take it to another state.

Easy.

As easy as that?

newtboy said:

That goes for Biden and America too, right? Don't like Biden, get out, easy as that, right? The difference being a majority DID vote for Biden.

That's the first way you're incorrect. A majority voted for representatives who voted for it, but the majority of voters, 54%-42%, don't want to go this far. It was not a referendum. The people didn't ask for and don't want this.

It's an obvious legal overreach, and will be overturned in time, but in the meantime, millions of women will have their autonomy, their authority over their own bodies, stripped from them, many will pay with their lives, and many huge companies are reconsidering moving or even existing in Texas because of this Baptist sharia law attack on women's rights over even their own bodies.

I suggest a sex strike in Texas until it's repealed. If they don't want a baby right now, women would be insane to have even protected intercourse.

I suggested my brother in Austin turn in the highway department for maintaining roads that facilitate transporting women to have abortions and claim his $10k bounty before the state goes bankrupt.

newtboy said:

Aaaahahaha.

Another Bobesque tantrum post? How lovely.

Trying to equate the slight disappointment the international community has with Biden as president to the abject horror of Trump as president as if the disdain were equal. LMFAHS!! Ridiculously asinine.

As usual, right wing apologists can't read. Some gaps were left when construction halted after Biden halted funding, funding the courts had deemed illegal btw, but others were not. Some were planned, some were due to failures of the fence Trump chose, some were due to contractors doing half assed jobs or being incapable of the work, some due to topography, there were many excuses but in the end, it wasn't a wall, it wasn't complete, it barely extended border barriers, and many places were left less secure...none of which is Biden's fault. They knew full well the next administration wasn't continuing this plan. You don't think they should have planned for that maybe? Finished the parts they dismantled at least before the only supporter left power? Nope. Guess not. Perfectly reasonable to leave it half done and expect the next guy who campaigned against it to finish it or take all the blame for all it's failures. Didn't Donny promise to have it done his first term anyway?

🤦‍♂️

I read a few articles from multiple sources on both sides before responding...not just the one particular cherry picked one you linked...i know better.

Not half ever wanted the wall, and likely under 1/3 want more poorly built fencing now that we've seen how horrible it is. Over half want the border secured, but that's not the same as support for the dumb wall/fence. Border security isn't just a fence, it comes in all flavors. Indeed, many agree that the best way to stem immigration is not building barriers both physical and institutional, but to increase anti narco terrorism funding in central America and end the war on drugs. Starve the drug gangs of money, they'll lose power and stop driving families out.

It was absolutely NOT paid for, Trump had to use an executive order to redirect funds that were earmarked by congress to pay for military family housing, because he couldn't get congress to pay for his boondoggle, much less Mexico as promised. If it had been fully funded, it would have been fully built.

Biden is not doing well at immigration. In his defense, he was left a clusterfuck, but he hasn't solved any major problems yet. As an adult, I'm capable of admitting that easily. The level of incompetence between him and Trump, however, are worlds apart, and the approaches are as well. One dehumanized and demonized immigrants, the other seems to be at least trying to get a working immigration and refugee system back in place, but is moving slowly. Your implications that they're both equally awful indicates either a strong bias for Trump, or strong break with reality.

I and others have clearly said many times on other threads, Biden is failing at immigration, and failing at being prepared to accept immigrant children. As a seeming right wing apologist at best, you seem blind and deaf to those complaints from the left and pretend we are childishly hypocritical instead....so no, you're far from getting it right, you're getting it totally backwards and twisted. Derp.

Another empty complaint/accusation. What fake news did I spread? Pretty easy but also completely meaningless to shout "your wrong" with no explanation, no correction, no specifics. Very Trumpian of you sir.

Anybody who writes what you did about Biden must be a hypocritical and douchey Trump supporter or just a plain brown wrapper nutjob. Even with his speech impediment, Biden is clear, thoughtful, and coherent...unlike Trump who never said a complete sentence or even complete thought in four years. Your hyper biased characterizations and factless, pointless, non sequitor, insult ridden tantrums masquerading as an argument are what paint you as a Trumpster, not your baseless accusations of hypocrisy.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. Thanks for the reminder.

newtboy said:

LMFAHS!!!! Bobby? That is you, isn't it? This is the kind of total non sequitur, irrational, fact free, second grade level "argument" I expect from you. Not sure why you quoted me, you didn't address a single point I made with your rambling rant.

The delusion and lack of self awareness is strong with this one.

Sorry, there's no cult of Biden. Democrats still have functioning brains, unlike Trumpists who believe eating fresh babies make people younger and gives them magic powers, that vaccines have invisible Microsoft microchips that will take over their brains so George Soros can force them to become transsexual communists, and that when you lose an election the patriotic thing to do is stage a deadly coup. The right lost it's mind in 2015 and has never seen a doctor.

If Biden shot someone in cold blood, Democrats would demand prosecution and ostracize him. When Trump said it, he meant it, and the crowd of magamorons cheered in unanimous agreement. Derp?

Not a bit sure what you mean by linking an article about Biden considering completing some of the useless fencing Trump replaced existing barriers with. No surprise, most of the "wall" Trump brags about replaced existing barriers, many more functional than his fence design that is just gawd awful, easy to push down and drive trucks through and that can't even stand up in wind, but also weren't completed and often ended up being maybe 100 yards of fence, then 20 yards of nothing, then another 100 yards of fence, then more gaps, etc. Those unfinished repair/replacement projects are worthless wastes of billions if not finished, and often made the border more porous, not more secure, because they replaced functional (if imperfect) barriers. You think you have some point to make because Biden is considering finishing those projects to at least fix the holes Trump left, and plans to fund them legally through congress not by illegal executive orders taking money earmarked by congress for military family housing and handing it to his donors brand new construction companies for no bid contracts like Trump did, against court orders no less? I just don't know what you think that means, how it's a bad thing Biden is doing by not just ignoring problems created by the ineptitude of the previous administration but instead being presidential, or how it defends Trump's disastrous record, which seems to be your objective.

Hmmmm.....more snowflake tears, yummy.

newtboy said:

I mean what I said. Trump (and his subordinates at his direction) made up new regulations, New laws, New restrictions, New limits, new procedures, and new rules that combined made it not just harder but often impossible for people who, before Trump under any administration would have been quickly granted asylum in accordance with the law. He also slowed the process for legally applying, limited the number allowed to apply in a way never done before, and created new systems where instead of waiting in the country they had to wait in another country with no services in crime ridden refugee camps if they're lucky, sometimes sent south of Mexico, many instructed to go home and wait, homes they fled under direct and credible threats of death or worse....many after having their children taken.

Trump did not simply "enforce current laws". He changed them, misinterpreted them, ignored them repeatedly and flagrantly, then enforced those he liked. Consistently the intent was to minimize any immigration as much as possible from countries that aren't predominantly white. Not once was the intent to streamline the system so it would improve, every step was designed to slow the process and deny entry to as many people as possible, even those with legitimate life or death reasons for asylum. He even changed those rules to exclude narco terrorism death threats to be a reason for asylum, not because they aren't valid but because there are too many.

When you personally create the "law" you're enforcing by (often illegally) changing the rules and established interpretation of long standing law and policy to make following the law near impossible and often deadly, you don't get credit as if that's being a humanitarian just enforcing the law. Duh.

Edit: BTW Mr law and order, Trump never followed the law in his business dealings nor with his taxes or his loans (hyperexagerated his property values on loan documents, while minimizing their value on tax forms). His best excuse? His claim that he's not a real businessman and didn't even bother to read the loan and tax documents he swore were correct because he had no idea if they were.....His claim that everyone does that, everyone is a tax cheater and bank fraud perpetrator, is asinine.....but exposes him as the criminal fraud we all know he is, not a man who respects the law.