• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trial to Begin in Abortion-Doctor Killing

You mean that one term president who will lose one judge to ovarian cancer next year and Douglas will be 90 and retire and then butchering in the womb will stop........As far as gay marriage goes, I don't even worry about that, you are losing every day on that one......The people have spoke DD.....Live with it.......

WOw Navy...you really do live in a dream world. Who do you think is going to beat Obama, Palin? :doh
Obama will win a second term....but even if not, his election in 2008 protected the Supreme Court from extremism at least for the next couple of decades. Whatever hope the right-wing had of stacking the Supreme Court with activist judges died that November evening. Obama will have at least one more appointment, possibly more. I thank GOD every day that people like you didn't get the chance to destroy the Court, at least in my lifetime.

As for gay marriage, Navy....you are losing the war. Open your eyes and look around you. The world is changing and it will take you along with it, whether you like it or not.
 
Ok, so what you are saying has nothing to do with legality. If this is the case, then again, your hypothetical makes no sense. You said "if it was legal to do those things". Therefore, you are bringing legality into it. You can't have it both ways, james.
Again a serial killer is someone whose victims all have something in common with each other.For example someone who only kills cops,someone who only kills Mormons, someone who kills only anti-war protesters someone who only kills veterinarian and etc. IT doesn't matter if it was legal or not.

And I reject your definition of "serial killer". A serial killer is one who murders at least three people.

Again you are confusing serial killer with mass murderer.

Murder is a legal term... serial killers are murderers.

Then why are they not called serial murderers if serial killer is a purely a legal term?

What Dr. Tiller did was legal. Your usage of the term "serial killer" to describe him is inaccurate and used only for dramatic effect.

Tiller is a serial killer, all his victims have something in common they are babies who have yet to be born and Tiller has killed lots of them.

James... your hypothetical makes NO SENSE. If it was legal to kill people for anti-military protests, someone who killed the person who did that would be a criminal. What Tiller did was legal. What Roeder did was not. I condemn Roeder. He murdered. Tiller did not.

You are just a hypocrite condemning Scott Roeder.Had Tiller's victims been adults I do not think you would be condemning Roeder regardless if it was legal or illegal.You just like all the other abortionist equate a unborn child to that of a toenail or some other expendable organ or body part. That is why your ilk condemn Scott Roeder.
 
You mean that one term president who will lose one judge to ovarian cancer next year and Douglas will be 90 and retire and then butchering in the womb will stop........

IF the idiots at Fox try to prop up Palin or the republicans try to prop up Romney,McCain, Giuliani or some other Rino then Obama will have another term. I am not sure if Palin is a Rino, but I do know that she is a flip flopper and a quitter and all her opponents will use that against her.

As far as gay marriage goes, I don't even worry about that, you are losing every day on that one......The people have spoke DD.....Live with it.......

Calling it something different and legalizing marriage under another term hardly sounds like a loss.Four states with "civil union"s and six states with "domestic partnerships" and I am sure more are doing the same thing. If I called a pile of cow **** a T-Bone steak or filet mignon would you eat it?
 
That's the question? Okay. I'd say it would be okay to kill someone who killed other people (any people, not just the groups you chose) even though it was legal. The difference is that nobody disagrees that those people are people, because they've been born.
As I thought.If only the other hypocrites admit that too.
 
WOw Navy...you really do live in a dream world. Who do you think is going to beat Obama, Palin? :doh
Obama will win a second term....but even if not, his election in 2008 protected the Supreme Court from extremism at least for the next couple of decades. Whatever hope the right-wing had of stacking the Supreme Court with activist judges died that November evening. Obama will have at least one more appointment, possibly more. I thank GOD every day that people like you didn't get the chance to destroy the Court, at least in my lifetime.

As for gay marriage, Navy....you are losing the war. Open your eyes and look around you. The world is changing and it will take you along with it, whether you like it or not.

If the Republicans can win in Mass. anything can happen........I heard that they had not won that seat sincee 1952....If that happens in the most liberal state in the union Obama is toast.........

You say your winning on the gay marriage issue as you continue to lose state after state.....You have won nothing when ta vote of the people took place......The people will never let you jam gay marriage down thir throat...Your losing and you will continue to lose....That would even happen in Mass. if the people got to vote on the issue and not allow activist judges to make law instead of interpret it.......

Dream on DD, you are losing big time and you will continue to do so...You can't even name one state where you have won.........
 
IF the idiots at Fox try to prop up Palin or the republicans try to prop up Romney,McCain, Giuliani or some other Rino then Obama will have another term. I am not sure if Palin is a Rino, but I do know that she is a flip flopper and a quitter and all her opponents will use that against her.



Calling it something different and legalizing marriage under another term hardly sounds like a loss.Four states with "civil union"s and six states with "domestic partnerships" and I am sure more are doing the same thing. If I called a pile of cow **** a T-Bone steak or filet mignon would you eat it?

What the **** are you talking about> I did not even mention Palin....... I will say Palin is no rino.....She is a conservative......That is why the left hate her so much........
 
If the Republicans can win in Mass. anything can happen........I heard that they had not won that seat sincee 1952....If that happens in the most liberal state in the union Obama is toast.........

You say your winning on the gay marriage issue as you continue to lose state after state.....You have won nothing when ta vote of the people took place......The people will never let you jam gay marriage down thir throat...Your losing and you will continue to lose....That would even happen in Mass. if the people got to vote on the issue and not allow activist judges to make law instead of interpret it.......

Dream on DD, you are losing big time and you will continue to do so...You can't even name one state where you have won.........


Problem is Navy....you are playing checkers....the rest of us are playing chess. You may have gotten a few pawns, but you will lose the match. Its inevitable. I think its funny that you cannot see it slipping away. When it happens you will be ill-prepared
 
Again a serial killer is someone whose victims all have something in common with each other.For example someone who only kills cops,someone who only kills Mormons, someone who kills only anti-war protesters someone who only kills veterinarian and etc. IT doesn't matter if it was legal or not.

You saw the definition I quoted. you are using the definition wrong... to fit your agenda. Use the definition correctly and then we can talk.



Again you are confusing serial killer with mass murderer.

No, you are using the term serial killer incorrectly because the correct terminology demonstrates that your hypothetical was inaccurate and stupid. Use the term correctly, and then we can discuss this.



Then why are they not called serial murderers if serial killer is a purely a legal term?

You read the definition, correct? You are altering the definition to fit your agenda because the correct definition proves you wrong. Very dishonest debating.



Tiller is a serial killer, all his victims have something in common they are babies who have yet to be born and Tiller has killed lots of them.

Tiller is not a serial killer by definition.



You are just a hypocrite condemning Scott Roeder.Had Tiller's victims been adults I do not think you would be condemning Roeder regardless if it was legal or illegal.You just like all the other abortionist equate a unborn child to that of a toenail or some other expendable organ or body part. That is why your ilk condemn Scott Roeder.

You didn't read my entire comment... because if you had it would have proved you wrong. All you are doing is debating dishonestly, altering terminology to fit your inaccurate agenda. What Tiller did was legal. What Roeder did was not. Roeder is a criminal. Tiller is not. If killing anti-war protesters was legal, and Scott Roeder killed the person who killed the anti-war protesters, Roeder would STILL be a criminal because what he did was illegal. There is no hypocrisy on my part. But there is complete dishonesty on yours.
 
As I thought.If only the other hypocrites admit that too.

I don't think my position is hypocritical. It's just that my level of thinking about this is higher than yours. And I don't mean that as an insult, though it is.

By your logic, it is justified to kill anyone as long as you can rationalize it somehow. Any injustice anyone has done to you or someone else - kill them.

There's more to it than that.
 
Last edited:
What the **** are you talking about>

You seem to think calling something by a different name must make it different regarding gay marriage issue and you have therefore falsely claimed that the left is losing the gay marriage battle.


I did not even mention Palin....... I will say Palin is no rino.....She is a conservative.

She is a quitter and a flip flopper though.Which is just as worse as a Rino.

.....That is why the left hate her so much........

The left hates anyone they think is not a %100 leftist,which is why despite Bush,Romney, McCain,Giuliani being libs they despised them.
 
You saw the definition I quoted. you are using the definition wrong... to fit your agenda. Use the definition correctly and then we can talk.

No, you are using the term serial killer incorrectly because the correct terminology demonstrates that your hypothetical was inaccurate and stupid. Use the term correctly, and then we can discuss this.

You read the definition, correct? You are altering the definition to fit your agenda because the correct definition proves you wrong. Very dishonest debating.


[\QUOTE]

Again a serial Killer is generally someone whose victims all have something in common with each other. For example blond prostitutes, one legged men,veterinarian and etc.


All you are doing is debating dishonestly, altering terminology to fit your inaccurate agenda.


Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.They dehumanize an unborn child to justify killing it.



There is no hypocrisy on my part. But there is complete dishonesty on yours.

The only dishonesty on your part and that of other abortionist.
 
Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.

Funny that is EXACTLY what the abortion doctor killers and their supporters have done. Tried to change the definition or "murder" to justify killing abortion doctors.
 
Again a serial Killer is generally someone whose victims all have something in common with each other. For example blond prostitutes, one legged men,veterinarian and etc.

All those things are illegal. You saw the definition I posted. You are ignoring it and not addressing it because it demonstrates that you have no argument.


Abortionist change the definitions all the time to justify what they do or support.They dehumanize an unborn child to justify killing it.

James, just admit that, as usual, you used overdramatic and inaccurate terminology and move on.





The only dishonesty on your part and that of other abortionist.

Again, you didn't read my answer to your silly hypothetical because it destroyed your argument. I know you have a real hard time admitting you are wrong, but here, as usual, you are. Now stop being dishonest.
 
Its a Bible Belt state so it can go either way.

The majority of Christian fundies do not support this killer. You can't just make a blanket statement for all of them. Sure, there are a few wackos on the religious right, but most really do believe in what Jesus taught.
 
Back
Top Bottom