South Dakota Leads Charge to Overturn Roe v. Wade

[Mr. Peabody]

Back-up has arrived

[smeagol]

I'll piggyback for Oh, Gee!! and Peabody.

Their so-called one-liners have more substance and realty and straight up truth, than many people's rhetoric in here. I'll be happy to be categorized in their company.

What do you mean by their so-called one-liners have more "straigh-up truth" than many people's rhetoric in here? (and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).

[Peter]

The best is when responses are made while ignoring the point a poster was trying to make and flaming on no other basis than the use of a specific term, for example:

The pols are trying to take back a right the Federal Government usurped from the states 30 + years ago. The struggle against federalism is about the oldest one this country has endured; before abortion, slavery, civil rights, union busting, monopoly busting and income tax has been the constant power-grab of the federal government over the "united" but seemingly still self-governing (ha-ha) states.

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh. Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

ARE YOU ING SERIOUS??? slavery?? You are indeed a jackass!!

I guess I should allow the Argentine some leeway, but this was rather egregious.

Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with 101A's point, but has the forum reached this level?

[mookie2001]

has the forum reached this level?

not quite the Lamarcus Bryant level, but close

like a Brian Bod er Level 3

[Peter]

not quite the Lamarcus Bryant level, but close

like a Brian Bod er Level 3

Just not the mookie level of complete and utter stupidity.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

The best is when responses are made while ignoring the point a poster was trying to make and flaming on no other basis than the use of a specific term

First of all, I did not ignore his point, I understood what he was trying to say. I simply found the fact that he grouped tose 3 together to be preposterous. Furthermore, he mentions slavery like it was a bad thing that the government abolished it, that too I find preposterous.

I guess I should allow the Argentine some leeway, but this was rather egregious.

What the is your fixation with me being Argentinian?? Just because you get owned every day by one doesn't mean you have to resent us sweetheart. Seriously, what the does me being an Argentinian have anything to do with anything?? oh and by the way, you know where you can stick that leeway, don't you Marcus? thats right

Next time, adress ME and ONLY me, for I made those posts, and do it without mentioning race, age, nationality or the such.

Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with 101A's point, but has the forum reached this level?

If you don't agree with him, and I don't agree with him, then what the are you complaining about?? What are you? the forum police or something? Get a life, and stop obsessing about us Argentinians, its getting unnerving

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Just not the mookie level of complete and utter stupidity.

oh now, come on Peter, do we really need to stoop so low as to call someone stupid? I thought you were above that sort of thing, you know, you being the forum nanny and all.

[Peter]

First of all, I did not ignore his point, I understood what he was trying to say. I simply found the fact that he grouped tose 3 together to be preposterous. Furthermore, he mentions slavery like it was a bad thing that the government abolished it, that too I find preposterous.

He only grouped those 3 because those have been significant consitutional and public policy issues over the course of US history. The issue of federalism does in fact predate those. That was his point.

What the is your fixation with me being Argentinian?? Just because you get owned every day by one doesn't mean you have to resent us sweetheart. Seriously, what the does me being an Argentinian have anything to do with anything??

Perhaps you aren't as familiar with US history due to that.

Next time, adress ME and ONLY me, for I made those posts, and do it without mentioning race, age, nationality or the such.

Fine, your response was lame, shallow, and stupid.

If you don't agree with him, and I don't agree with him, then what the are you complaining about?? What are you? the forum police or something? Get a life, and stop obsessing about us Argentinians, its getting unnerving

Hey man, I'm just a participant here like you. As long as you want to call people names and run your mouth I have no problem illustrating your stupidity.

[Mr. Peabody]

(and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).

Oh, I disagree. I think my stance on many issues is in accordance with the New Testament. In fact, probably more so than some of the self-proclaimed "Christians" on this forum.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Fine, your response was lame, shallow, and stupid.

There you go pumpkin, now was that so hard?

[mookie2001]

we all have dominant aggy avatars in our past we're hiding from...

[Peter]

we all have dominant aggy avatars in our past we're hiding from...

Not really, but whatever you need to make yourself feel better via the internets.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

He only grouped those 3 because those have been significant consitutional and public policy issues over the course of US history. The issue of federalism does in fact predate those. That was his point.

Indeed, and if I'm not mistaken, he views that fact as a BAD thing, whereas I believe its a VERY good thing. Furthermore, he says the following

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh.

and then he says this

Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

Seriously, who's the hypocrite here

[Peter]

We'll see if he agrees with that or if his disdain for the feds is relegated to the abortion issue. In any event, the response merited something other than "Slavery? Hahahha!".

[MaNuMaNiAc]

We'll see if he agrees with that or if his disdain for the feds is relegated to the abortion issue. In any event, the response merited something other than "Slavery? Hahahha!".

I suppose you're right, I just found that one a bit more over the top than the rest

[Mr. Peabody]

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh. Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

I assume this post was directed at me, since I started the thread.

I think it's preposterous to put South Dakota in the same category and Bolivia or Bangladesh for obvious reasons. These foreign nations are not bound by Supreme Court precedent. In this situation, we have a state that has blatantly defied a ruling of the Supreme Court, in order to "test the waters." It's concerning because other states will follow suit.

Also, I am not trying to "export" my morality on anyone. If the people of South Dakota don't want to have abortions, they already have that right and they can exercise it as the law now exists. If anyone is trying to "export" their morality on others (as you say) it is those people who aren't satisfied with their right NOT to have an abortion and insist on restricting everybody else's rights as well.

[Mr. Peabody]

I suppose you're right, I just found that one a bit more over the top than the rest

No, I found it "over the top" as well. I just got caught up in hegamboa's critiques of my posts.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I assume this post was directed at me, since I started the thread.

I think it's preposterous to put South Dakota in the same category and Bolivia or Bangladesh for obvious reasons. These foreign nations are not bound by Supreme Court precedent. In this situation, we have a state that has blatantly defied a ruling of the Supreme Court, in order to "test the waters." It's concerning because other states will follow suit.

Also, I am not trying to "export" my morality on anyone. If the people of South Dakota don't want to have abortions, they already have that right and they can exercise it as the law now exists. If anyone is trying to "export" their morality on others (as you say) it is those people who aren't satisfied with their right NOT to have an abortion and insist on restricting everybody else's rights as well.

bingo!

[SA210]

What do you mean by their so-called one-liners have more "straigh-up truth" than many people's rhetoric in here? (and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).

Bible blanket statement? Don't act like You're so innocent. I wasn't speaking about you anyway. I agree with Peabody's response to this post. And I wasn't going to quote scripture. Don't insult me that way.

[SA210]

Not really, but whatever you need to make yourself feel better via the internets.

Peter always gets his rear handed to him. He usually uses this line alot too.

[gtownspur]

That was probably the most metrosexual post I've ever read.

He qouted scripture...

you're just being a jackass.

[Peter]

Peter always gets his rear handed to him.

Nah, I don't

He usually uses this line alot too.

Nah, I don't.

[gtownspur]

What would all the forum liberals do with out SA210 rimming them?

[SA210]

What would all the forum liberals do with out SA210 rimming them?

What would the forum be like if gtown wouldn't bring something gay to the table every time?

[Phenomanul]

I don't even know what the you are talking about anymore. You accuse me of not addressing the original post....I am the one who posted the original post. The thread was going fine until you turned it into your own personal crusade for all of us to reveal our lives to you.

Look, maybe I was wrong to single you out, but what I said in the post you just responded to still holds. It took 28 posts before you came back and said anything and then you didn't even address the original article. Granted, you didn't say anything highly inflamatory at that point just the typical "Peabody" semantical play on words and humorous quips. But I differ on your assessment that "the thread was going fine" cause at that point MaNuMaNiA had spewed his highly contemptful comment, " Christians are a f****** plague!!" His disdain was uncalled for, albeit he is en led to his opinions. RobinsontoDuncan then signaled me out and said I was a plague... At that point I posted the longer post. Again, I don't go gloating about my charitable activities because if I did they would lose their significance, but....... you all have to understand I had to say something when people here insist on painting a picture of disdain, contempt and hatred towards all Christians. When I raised the question... "You all seem criticize continually, but what have you all done to fix our social problems" and what did I get... NADA. Oh yeah, I received CBF's comment that one can't learn to love. When I attempted to clarify on love's definition... I got accused of being metrosexual??? Anyways... MaNuMaNiA's comment was still uncalled for... and that's the only reason I came in to say anything considering that most of you are already decided on the 'Abortion issue'.... and that nothing I said was intended to change your stances.