FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Fair play to the Queen
Fair play to the Queen
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." Never be ashamed of our country, especialy when only a few of its denizens are acting out. One bad apple wont make the tree fall down  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." Well said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." My arsehole is sorry it offends you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. " You really do  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do "I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . My arsehole is sorry it offends you. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay"And you like me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . My arsehole is sorry it offends you. " It’s forgiven , and I hope your protestation has made you feel better  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . My arsehole is sorry it offends you. It’s forgiven , and I hope your protestation has made you feel better "Being prostrate and exposing my arsehole is always the start to a good weekend in my book. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . My arsehole is sorry it offends you. It’s forgiven , and I hope your protestation has made you feel better
Being prostrate and exposing my arsehole is always the start to a good weekend in my book. "Ooffft.... just saying  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Being prostrate and exposing my arsehole is always the start to a good weekend in my book.
Ooffft.... just saying "Down boy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay
And you like me. "I know you only went to that protest for the tea and biscuits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Being prostrate and exposing my arsehole is always the start to a good weekend in my book.
Ooffft.... just saying
Down boy!"Methinks ye protest too much  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The official picture issued by the palace sends quite a message lol. Taken in a corridor, queenie taking a step out of line, with an expression like she needs the loo, the Trumps miles apart and beaming like cheshire cats. It's an awful pic. Vulgar even. Which I'm sure is what it was. Lol" I need to go find this pic.
She's a professional. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." Yep  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay
And you like me.
I know you only went to that protest for the tea and biscuits "You’ve likely read a survey and have some stats to evidence that, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay"The revolution will not be televised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The official picture issued by the palace sends quite a message lol. Taken in a corridor, queenie taking a step out of line, with an expression like she needs the loo, the Trumps miles apart and beaming like cheshire cats. It's an awful pic. Vulgar even. Which I'm sure is what it was. Lol I need to go find this pic.
She's a professional. "Look for the one that resembles a Tussaud's advertising poster | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay
The revolution will not be televised "What signs should i look out for? Will there be four horse non-binaries coming over the horizon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The protesters are the same lot that don't have the brain power to accept the EU vote. Guess they can't accept change." Yeah, because the people who wanted to leave hadn’t been whinging for decades, and would have gracefully accepted the result of it had gone the other way, and never have mentioned it again, ever. It’s not about accepting change, it’s about recognising that the change is likely to be for the worst, being frustrated that the decision was made by people who didn’t know enough about it (on both sides), after being fed misinformation, outright lies, and told not to listen to experts. And also being frustrated that the government, who must surely know all of this, are too gutless to do anything about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. " Sooooo true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay
The revolution will not be televised
What signs should i look out for? Will there be four horse non-binaries coming over the horizon. "To be fair we do get pretty shouty, us non-binaries.
#hoarsejoke
#assseewhatyoudidthere | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The protesters are the same lot that don't have the brain power to accept the EU vote. Guess they can't accept change." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The protesters are the same lot that don't have the brain power to accept the EU vote. Guess they can't accept change. "See post above.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course" How to kill a thread stone dead | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead "I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes me proud to be British is that we are a country where thousands of people can protest about the visit of a foreign head of state without risking being thrown into jail. " Yes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though". "I love a consensual pussy grab. I love consensual nonconsent one too.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though". "Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects"He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects"So being on a swinging site means as a woman we just want to be regarded as sexual objects and not as a human being. Get real | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
So being on a swinging site means as a woman we just want to be regarded as sexual objects and not as a human being.
Get real"Yeah, it's this attitude that has made me dislike the majority of men here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him ."You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
So being on a swinging site means as a woman we just want to be regarded as sexual objects and not as a human being.
Get real" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?"He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?
He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy. "Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him ."Do I have to treat every foreign head of state with "utmost respect". Putin? Kim? The Saudi king? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Love the queen she has quite mastered the art of saying what she thinks without using words. Was proud to protest against Trump in Manchester yesterday, nothing like the scale of London obviously it some important messages passed in a peaceful manner none the less ." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.." Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?
He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy.
Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect'"He wasn’t late , she was her usual self and was early to ensure everything was as it should be . He arrived exactly at the designated time agreed . As I said earlier , the Queen is a consummate professional , and I agree he could learn a lot from her . She is someone we should all be proud of . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.. Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion ." We can still trade with the EU on the same terms we have now, if we're sensible. And this idea that we can pacify or suck up to Trump to get something we want is naive. We can kiss his arse all day long, it won't make a difference. He'll do what he wants to do regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.. Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion . We can still trade with the EU on the same terms we have now, if we're sensible. And this idea that we can pacify or suck up to Trump to get something we want is naive. We can kiss his arse all day long, it won't make a difference. He'll do what he wants to do regardless. " Trade on the same terms by not leaving ? Or go with the soft Brexit the white paper outlined ? Which makes a mockery of leaving in the first place  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?
He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy.
Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect'
He wasn’t late , she was her usual self and was early to ensure everything was as it should be . He arrived exactly at the designated time agreed .
As I said earlier , the Queen is a consummate professional , and I agree he could learn a lot from her . She is someone we should all be proud of ."Where does it say the Queen was early and he was on time? I missed that. And walking in front of her? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.. Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion . We can still trade with the EU on the same terms we have now, if we're sensible. And this idea that we can pacify or suck up to Trump to get something we want is naive. We can kiss his arse all day long, it won't make a difference. He'll do what he wants to do regardless. " Or what the gop / Russians tell him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." FTQ and "britain" xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.. Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion . We can still trade with the EU on the same terms we have now, if we're sensible. And this idea that we can pacify or suck up to Trump to get something we want is naive. We can kiss his arse all day long, it won't make a difference. He'll do what he wants to do regardless. Trade on the same terms by not leaving ? Or go with the soft Brexit the white paper outlined ? Which makes a mockery of leaving in the first place "Given that leaving is a stupid idea, I'm very happy to make a mockery of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So we need america? Why? Cos we left the eu.. So instead of being reliant on many countries in europe, we have to now put all our eggs in one basket and rely on the usa. I see no logic in this.. Well it’s what we have , so ostracising potential partners as we are doing with Trump defies logic in my opinion ." I think it was you who said that trump put America first and that was a good thing. Given that, he is going to shaft the UK whatever we do. We need the USA (because of Brexit) more than it needs us and Trump, in putting America first will take advantage of that. It's extremely naive to think anything else will happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?
He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy.
Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect'
He wasn’t late , she was her usual self and was early to ensure everything was as it should be . He arrived exactly at the designated time agreed .
As I said earlier , the Queen is a consummate professional , and I agree he could learn a lot from her . She is someone we should all be proud of .
Where does it say the Queen was early and he was on time? I missed that.
And walking in front of her? "Google offers plenty of evidence on his punctuality , and as I said , he could learn a lot from her . He’s far from perfect but I don’t think he deserves the vitriol being thrown at him . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
You think he treated the Queen with respect? How did he do that?
He walked in front of her on the grass. She had to dodge round him. What a guy.
Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect'
He wasn’t late , she was her usual self and was early to ensure everything was as it should be . He arrived exactly at the designated time agreed .
As I said earlier , the Queen is a consummate professional , and I agree he could learn a lot from her . She is someone we should all be proud of .
Where does it say the Queen was early and he was on time? I missed that.
And walking in front of her?
Google offers plenty of evidence on his punctuality , and as I said , he could learn a lot from her . He’s far from perfect but I don’t think he deserves the vitriol being thrown at him ."It offers plenty of evidence of his lateness, only one result saying he was on time. By an American reporter. Everything about him is grotesque. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Hate and abuse thats directed at Donald Trump reveals the bitter, intolerant contents and empty unhappy lives of those displaying such negative and destructive emotions... Such a dark spirit that seeks to undermine the very fabric of what made Britain great..." Which simply put means what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Hate and abuse thats directed at Donald Trump reveals the bitter, intolerant contents and empty unhappy lives of those displaying such negative and destructive emotions... Such a dark spirit that seeks to undermine the very fabric of what made Britain great... Which simply put means what? " You be playa hating | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
I love a consensual pussy grab.
I love consensual nonconsent one too. "Id like to help you with both 
Boo x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes me proud to be British is that we are a country where thousands of people can protest about the visit of a foreign head of state without risking being thrown into jail. " Which is good,but they seem selective about which heads of state to protest about. They never seem that interested in the real nasty bastards that visit this country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
Do I have to treat every foreign head of state with "utmost respect". Putin? Kim? The Saudi king? "Out of interest, do you think if your last name was Kim and you were born into the Kim dynasty, do you think you'd be any different to kim jung un? Other than perhaps a bit slimmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him ."Irrespective of whether she’s the Queen or not, he walked in front of a 92 year old woman leaving her trailing behind on a hot day when she had extended hospitality. That’s not respectful not matter who you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He grabbed the Queens and Theresa's pussy of course How to kill a thread stone dead
I love it when lefties try to pretend that consensual pussy grabbing is bad... on a swinging website... It's funnier when white knights do it though. "Oh i would never consentually grab someone by the pussy, what a horrible though".
Its his attitude that woman are just sexual objects
He has treated the prime minister and the Queen with the utmost respect . Far much more so than the protesters have treated him .
Irrespective of whether she’s the Queen or not, he walked in front of a 92 year old woman leaving her trailing behind on a hot day when she had extended hospitality. That’s not respectful not matter who you are. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"H. Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect'" I watched it live on BBC or Sky. The commentator said he was due to arrive at 1700 and that was exactly when he did arrive. The Queen was early. I've some people rage on Facebook, too, that he did not bow. As far as I'm concerned, heads of state are equals - they do not doff their cap to anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"H. Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect' I watched it live on BBC or Sky. The commentator said he was due to arrive at 1700 and that was exactly when he did arrive. The Queen was early. I've some people rage on Facebook, too, that he did not bow. As far as I'm concerned, heads of state are equals - they do not doff their cap to anyone." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes me proud to be British is that we are a country where thousands of people can protest about the visit of a foreign head of state without risking being thrown into jail. Which is good,but they seem selective about which heads of state to protest about. They never seem that interested in the real nasty bastards that visit this country." Anyone is free to protest about any head of state they dislike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. You really do
I like the Queen, the Lords and first past the post - they all serve the keep the revolution at bay
The revolution will not be televised
What signs should i look out for? Will there be four horse non-binaries coming over the horizon. "https://youtu.be/qGaoXAwl9kw Gill scott-heron--the revolution will not be televised | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes me proud to be British is that we are a country where thousands of people can protest about the visit of a foreign head of state without risking being thrown into jail. Which is good,but they seem selective about which heads of state to protest about. They never seem that interested in the real nasty bastards that visit this country." Didn't Peter Tatchell try to do a citizen arrest on president Mugabe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"H. Yes. And was late by 12 minutes. So I want to know what he did that showed her 'utmost respect' I watched it live on BBC or Sky. The commentator said he was due to arrive at 1700 and that was exactly when he did arrive. The Queen was early. I've some people rage on Facebook, too, that he did not bow. As far as I'm concerned, heads of state are equals - they do not doff their cap to anyone." Oh right. I missed that. He walked infront of her though. Big no no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Only up to a point. Clearly The Queen is in a position that the rest of us are not, so it is only right that she should have a degree of professionalism about it all. Doesn’t mean the rest of Joe Public has to though. In that respect, I’m not sure I agree that people protesting are arseholes, or that just because they are protesting about Trump they are ‘not happy unless they aren’t protesting’. Given Trump’s record on virtually everything there is a lot not to like, and a lot that is arguably worth protesting about." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The protesters are the same lot that don't have the brain power to accept the EU vote. Guess they can't accept change." Why is is that Brexiteers were allowed to protest for over 40 years that they didn't like a referendum result, but a Remainer is a bad sport who doesn't like democracy because they do the same? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . My arsehole is sorry it offends you. " Why what's his name ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." I don't know if it's the male or female half posting but I do know that it's definitely the sub half of the relationship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . I don't know if it's the male or female half posting but I do know that it's definitely the sub half of the relationship." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. " Not critical of the system, critical of the man. Besides, there’s no need to replicate the American system of government if the monarchy is abolished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. Not critical of the system, critical of the man. Besides, there’s no need to replicate the American system of government if the monarchy is abolished." So which Republican president in the last 40 years, did you like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So which Republican president in the last 40 years, did you like? " Whether or not I like or dislike them has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike their policies, and whether or not I like or dislike their policies has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike the system. That goes for leaders of this country, too. I like that we have a democracy that means that people with policies I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that people I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that when people don’t like a leader or his policies, they can protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So which Republican president in the last 40 years, did you like? Whether or not I like or dislike them has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike their policies, and whether or not I like or dislike their policies has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike the system. That goes for leaders of this country, too. I like that we have a democracy that means that people with policies I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that people I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that when people don’t like a leader or his policies, they can protest." It's only lefties who can do the mental gymnastics to totally seperate a system from the results it generates. If a system repeatedly gives you awful results, that's the universe telling you there are fundamental flaws with that system. It boggles my mind why lefties defend systems that continuously produce results they don't even agree with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What makes me proud to be British is that we are a country where thousands of people can protest about the visit of a foreign head of state without risking being thrown into jail. " So far!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So which Republican president in the last 40 years, did you like? Whether or not I like or dislike them has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike their policies, and whether or not I like or dislike their policies has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike the system. That goes for leaders of this country, too. I like that we have a democracy that means that people with policies I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that people I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that when people don’t like a leader or his policies, they can protest. It's only lefties who can do the mental gymnastics to totally seperate a system from the results it generates. If a system repeatedly gives you awful results, that's the universe telling you there are fundamental flaws with that system. It boggles my mind why lefties defend systems that continuously produce results they don't even agree with. " To be fair we haven’t had anything like a leftie government since the mid seventies . I wonder why ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's only lefties who can do the mental gymnastics to totally seperate a system from the results it generates." Not at all. There are no mental gymnastics involved in accepting that, in a democracy, a lot of people will disagree with who is in power. "If a system repeatedly gives you awful results, that's the universe telling you there are fundamental flaws with that system." You’re making the fairly basic error of conflating ‘results some people disagree with’ and ‘awful results’. "It boggles my mind why lefties defend systems that continuously produce results they don't even agree with. " You’re really, honestly baffled by the principle of democracy? Is the system perfect? No. Most people I’ve spoken to with left-of-centre political views would prefer proportional representation, which would subtly shift the result of most elections, but it’s not perfect. No system is. It’s still reasonably fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So which Republican president in the last 40 years, did you like? Whether or not I like or dislike them has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike their policies, and whether or not I like or dislike their policies has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike the system. That goes for leaders of this country, too. I like that we have a democracy that means that people with policies I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that people I don’t like can win. I like that we have a democracy that means that when people don’t like a leader or his policies, they can protest. It's only lefties who can do the mental gymnastics to totally seperate a system from the results it generates. If a system repeatedly gives you awful results, that's the universe telling you there are fundamental flaws with that system. It boggles my mind why lefties defend systems that continuously produce results they don't even agree with. To be fair we haven’t had anything like a leftie government since the mid seventies . I wonder why ?" Because the country ground to a halt and stopped working. But now enough time has passed that the old guard can talk about the 70's like it was a fucking golden age and the young people are too stupid to fact check what they are saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's only lefties who can do the mental gymnastics to totally seperate a system from the results it generates. Not at all. There are no mental gymnastics involved in accepting that, in a democracy, a lot of people will disagree with who is in power. If a system repeatedly gives you awful results, that's the universe telling you there are fundamental flaws with that system. You’re making the fairly basic error of conflating ‘results some people disagree with’ and ‘awful results’. It boggles my mind why lefties defend systems that continuously produce results they don't even agree with. You’re really, honestly baffled by the principle of democracy? Is the system perfect? No. Most people I’ve spoken to with left-of-centre political views would prefer proportional representation, which would subtly shift the result of most elections, but it’s not perfect. No system is. It’s still reasonably fair." I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. " I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person." Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. " The vast majority of people on the left in the UK take the view that if we were starting from a scratch we wouldn't have a head of state based on hereditary privilege, but given we are not starting from scratch, given that most people like the monarchy and given that the monarchy is not a serious barrier to left wing policies, we're not going to waste energy worrying about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. The vast majority of people on the left in the UK take the view that if we were starting from a scratch we wouldn't have a head of state based on hereditary privilege, but given we are not starting from scratch, given that most people like the monarchy and given that the monarchy is not a serious barrier to left wing policies, we're not going to waste energy worrying about it. " So if we were starting from scratch, what would the system look like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. The vast majority of people on the left in the UK take the view that if we were starting from a scratch we wouldn't have a head of state based on hereditary privilege, but given we are not starting from scratch, given that most people like the monarchy and given that the monarchy is not a serious barrier to left wing policies, we're not going to waste energy worrying about it. So if we were starting from scratch, what would the system look like? " I'd prefer an indirectly elected ceremonial President along the lines of Germany or Italy (as opposed to the executive presidents you get in the USA and France). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. The vast majority of people on the left in the UK take the view that if we were starting from a scratch we wouldn't have a head of state based on hereditary privilege, but given we are not starting from scratch, given that most people like the monarchy and given that the monarchy is not a serious barrier to left wing policies, we're not going to waste energy worrying about it. So if we were starting from scratch, what would the system look like? " Small governmemt, helping less abled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not baffled by the principle of democracy, I'm interested in the results of different types of democracy. I'm not going to accept, without evidence, that more democracy is inherently better. I see absolutely zero evidence that countries with 100%, elected governments do a better job than mixed systems like ours and i have lots of counter evidence. I’m not saying that ‘more’ democracy is inherently better. There’s nothing scientific in this but, again, most people I speak to with a left-of-centre outlook don’t disagree with the existence of an unelected body designed to scrutinise legislation. The House of Lords is getting there, gradually replacing bloodlines with genuine expertise, but it’s not perfect. It probably never will be. That’s fine. It still doesn’t change that the passion behind the Trump protests is very much fuelled by him as a person. Agreed, Center of left people don't tend to disagree with the Lords or the Monarchy. My original comments were aimed at the looney left, or far left as you might prefer to call them. The vast majority of people on the left in the UK take the view that if we were starting from a scratch we wouldn't have a head of state based on hereditary privilege, but given we are not starting from scratch, given that most people like the monarchy and given that the monarchy is not a serious barrier to left wing policies, we're not going to waste energy worrying about it. So if we were starting from scratch, what would the system look like? I'd prefer an indirectly elected ceremonial President along the lines of Germany or Italy (as opposed to the executive presidents you get in the USA and France). " Could be worse. I like things the way they are though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*comes in on thread on my little scooter* ‘Wanker’ *toots my little horn* ‘wanker’ *trys to do a wheelie to impress the girls, but nearly comes off* ‘Wanker’ *rides out of thread*" Thanks for your contribution | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*comes in on thread on my little scooter* ‘Wanker’ *toots my little horn* ‘wanker’ *trys to do a wheelie to impress the girls, but nearly comes off* ‘Wanker’ *rides out of thread* Thanks for your contribution "You are most welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Queen has hosted many despicable leaders. She's a professional and does her duty. It's her job. I don't see how that is offered as a comparison to legal, peaceful protest. The pictures of her with the Trumps shows none of the warmth seen in those with the Obamas. Why is the lounge full of Trumpologists, Brexit and slurs about people's political leanings? No thread appears to be safe. " Speaking for myself only, but he saved us from Clinton being President and that deserves a | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Queen has hosted many despicable leaders. She's a professional and does her duty. It's her job. I don't see how that is offered as a comparison to legal, peaceful protest. The pictures of her with the Trumps shows none of the warmth seen in those with the Obamas. Why is the lounge full of Trumpologists, Brexit and slurs about people's political leanings? No thread appears to be safe. Speaking for myself only, but he saved us from Clinton being President and that deserves a "I would much rather Clinton being president. Less likely that a nuclear war would start because he spat his dummy out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Queen has hosted many despicable leaders. She's a professional and does her duty. It's her job. I don't see how that is offered as a comparison to legal, peaceful protest. The pictures of her with the Trumps shows none of the warmth seen in those with the Obamas. Why is the lounge full of Trumpologists, Brexit and slurs about people's political leanings? No thread appears to be safe. Speaking for myself only, but he saved us from Clinton being President and that deserves a
I would much rather Clinton being president. Less likely that a nuclear war would start because he spat his dummy out."Hardly a very objective statement given his success in meeting and taking the biggest nuclear threat. Something which Obama made zero progress with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Queen has hosted many despicable leaders. She's a professional and does her duty. It's her job. I don't see how that is offered as a comparison to legal, peaceful protest. The pictures of her with the Trumps shows none of the warmth seen in those with the Obamas. Why is the lounge full of Trumpologists, Brexit and slurs about people's political leanings? No thread appears to be safe. Speaking for myself only, but he saved us from Clinton being President and that deserves a
I would much rather Clinton being president. Less likely that a nuclear war would start because he spat his dummy out."Do you mean because ‘she’ spat her dummy out . It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term . So there would be plenty of spare dummies to spit out if she had got in wouldn’t there ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The protesters are the same lot that don't have the brain power to accept the EU vote. Guess they can't accept change. Why is is that Brexiteers were allowed to protest for over 40 years that they didn't like a referendum result, but a Remainer is a bad sport who doesn't like democracy because they do the same?" . I must have missed them, which is a shame because I'd like to have shouted get a life you jobless bunch of useless shits!. Same as I'd do for this bunch of reprobates | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." I’ve read this thread and I still don’t understand. We’ve fought for the right to protest and have freedom of speech in our country so why is it necessary to label folk as ‘arseholes’ for protesting about what they believe is right or not? As long as people protest peacefully that is. It kind of sounds like you think people should be selective about who they protest about. You say somewhere that we need to remember America backed us at various points and we have trade deals. Quite correct but that doesn’t mean people should then be a slave to them and be in agreement constantly or be worried about having a difference of opinion. Every European country seems to have an issue with Trump but one day he won’t be President and the ‘level headed’ Americans will remember that we were suck ups to this person and it is then that we may find ourselves in deep water. All that doesn’t really matter, it’s just my opinion but what is fact is that we have a right to protest peacefully and nobody should have the right to call folk ‘arseholes’ for doing so. If we’re not allowed to voice our opinion where does that leave us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term " That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. " Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. " Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London ." Ah you can always rely on the us for any help in your warfare and vice versa don't worry about that Something else to be proud of | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? " What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. " I'd never heard of that before. That's sick. In what universe would anyone think that's ok? I don't want to google it. Is that legal in the world somewhere? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. I'd never heard of that before. That's sick. In what universe would anyone think that's ok? I don't want to google it. Is that legal in the world somewhere?" Not anymore, but it would be if it was up to Clinton. It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder. America is actually the only country where some disgusting doctors starting doing it. Thankfully the Republican party banned it in 2003, which Hillary voted against. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. I'd never heard of that before. That's sick. In what universe would anyone think that's ok? I don't want to google it. Is that legal in the world somewhere? Not anymore, but it would be if it was up to Clinton. It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder. America is actually the only country where some disgusting doctors starting doing it. Thankfully the Republican party banned it in 2003, which Hillary voted against. " 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t doubt that the Queen thinks Donald Trump is a complete cunt , just like the hundreds of thousands protesters . He certainly doesn’t seem like the kind of guy she would choose to associate with . But because she sees the bigger picture , and realises we as a nation need him more than he needs us , she isn’t the bigger person and makes the effort . So fair play to her , thank goodness for the monarchy in the UK . The pricks that are out there protesting will soon be feeling very sorry for themselves when he tells us to get fucked if we want a trade deal , or American help with any future warfare . Remember he was the first to support us with the Russian nerve agent in Salisbury . Today is a day to say I’m proud to be British thanks to the monarchy , but ashamed at the same time because of the protesting arseholes in London . I’ve read this thread and I still don’t understand. We’ve fought for the right to protest and have freedom of speech in our country so why is it necessary to label folk as ‘arseholes’ for protesting about what they believe is right or not? As long as people protest peacefully that is. It kind of sounds like you think people should be selective about who they protest about. You say somewhere that we need to remember America backed us at various points and we have trade deals. Quite correct but that doesn’t mean people should then be a slave to them and be in agreement constantly or be worried about having a difference of opinion. Every European country seems to have an issue with Trump but one day he won’t be President and the ‘level headed’ Americans will remember that we were suck ups to this person and it is then that we may find ourselves in deep water. All that doesn’t really matter, it’s just my opinion but what is fact is that we have a right to protest peacefully and nobody should have the right to call folk ‘arseholes’ for doing so. If we’re not allowed to voice our opinion where does that leave us? " I don’t think that my calling the protesters arseholes is any less than what the protesters are doing is it ? Exoressing my opinion with a word that came to mind . The protesters are using far more specific names for him , and way more derogatory too . I don’t think I said that people shouldn’t exercise their right to protest . I said they could regret it if we need his help . And I said I wasn’t proud of their efforts . Childish effigies and so on , and getting kids who have no idea what’s going on involved is not my bag . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out." Have you written that properly? Because if the head hasn’t come out, the baby hasn’t been born. "It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder." We’ve covered this before, so you need to get your facts straight. Murder is a very specific term, and requires the victim to be entirely separated from the mother, no longer attached by the umbilical cord, and ‘surviving independently (ie breathing unaided and not getting nutrition through the cord). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. Have you written that properly? Because if the head hasn’t come out, the baby hasn’t been born. It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder. We’ve covered this before, so you need to get your facts straight. Murder is a very specific term, and requires the victim to be entirely separated from the mother, no longer attached by the umbilical cord, and ‘surviving independently (ie breathing unaided and not getting nutrition through the cord)." You need to get your moral compass straight  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think that my calling the protesters arseholes is any less than what the protesters are doing is it ? Exoressing my opinion with a word that came to mind . The protesters are using far more specific names for him , and way more derogatory too ." I was thinking that as I read the post, and was wondering why it still felt different. And here’s the reason; those people are protesting against Trump for a number of objectionable actions and remarks he has made. It seemed, from your initial post, that the only thing you objected to was the fact that they are protesting, which does seem odd. I wondered, for example, if it had been Clinton who won, and we were seeing different protesters, you would still call them ‘arseholes’ and ‘pricks’. "I don’t think I said that people shouldn’t exercise their right to protest . I said they could regret it if we need his help . And I said I wasn’t proud of their efforts . Childish effigies and so on , and getting kids who have no idea what’s going on involved is not my bag ." So, this provides a little more clarity. You point out that you never said this, that, or the other (although, it was the lack of things you said that was hindering understanding). So we’ve got two examples now of things that make them arseholes and pricks; childish effigies, and involving children. The childish effigies one, I won’t even begin to agree with you on. That kind of thing has been a staple of satire and parody pretty much since the birth of satire. People are portrayed in exaggerated ways to highlight their flaws. Did you never watch Spitting Image? As for the involving children, I will partly agree. Some people have to bring their kids to protests, because there’s nobody else to look after them. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t like it when they get kids to hold banners or placards, though. But, we’ve seen all sorts of people do that in all sorts of protests, and I’m not sure why these particular protesters get labelled as ‘arseholes’ and ‘pricks’ for just that reason. Which leaves us with, “They could regret it if we need help.” Could that phrase not be (more appropriately) aimed at those who voted to leave the European Union? Had that not happened, nobody would have to pander to that man in the desperate hope that he throws a lifeline. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight "And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself."It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder. "He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition. I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder. "He is making a point as to the legal definition of the term. "murder". That's of course an entirely separate issue as to whether the practice is morally wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. " Which part of the 2003 act provides for late term abortions in the case of saving a mother's life? Is it possible for you to just provide answers to back up your claims without all the accompanying waffle? It's really boring. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It was Hilary Clinton he beat , the woman who spouted on about abortion being made legal right up to full term That isn't true. She favoured a limit so long as there was an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Not true. She wanted exceptions for the mothers life and health, which would of course include mental health, which is a bullshit catch all term that basically allows it in any circumstance. That's why she's so morally disgusting, she's very clever at framing things. Where does Clinton say that it includes mental health? What you need to do is educate yourself before you proclaim statements of fact. In 2003 she voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The act already contained an exception when the mothers life was as risk, which is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. I don't quite understand the mental gymnastics you do to persuade yourself that it isn't murder, but it shows how far off a persona moral compass has to be to support that kind of disgusting practice. Which part of the 2003 act provides for late term abortions in the case of saving a mother's life? Is it possible for you to just provide answers to back up your claims without all the accompanying waffle? It's really boring. " Go read the act, I can't post links here. It's not hard to find. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?"I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. Have you written that properly? Because if the head hasn’t come out, the baby hasn’t been born. It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder. We’ve covered this before, so you need to get your facts straight. Murder is a very specific term, and requires the victim to be entirely separated from the mother, no longer attached by the umbilical cord, and ‘surviving independently (ie breathing unaided and not getting nutrition through the cord). You need to get your moral compass straight "That comment exposes *you*, actually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial birth abortion is where a baby is born, but killed before the head comes out. Have you written that properly? Because if the head hasn’t come out, the baby hasn’t been born. It's illegal in the UK because nobody here could find a way to imagine that killing a viable fetus wouldn't be murder. We’ve covered this before, so you need to get your facts straight. Murder is a very specific term, and requires the victim to be entirely separated from the mother, no longer attached by the umbilical cord, and ‘surviving independently (ie breathing unaided and not getting nutrition through the cord). You need to get your moral compass straight "I don’t see how making a statement of (legal) fact indicates any position on a moral compass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial-birth abortion isn’t even the accepted medical term for this either, so that’s a loaded term to use given it’s from the political arena. " The medical community doesn't use the term because it was never a legitimate medical practice. It was something some morally repulsive doctors starting doing. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court upheld the ban, so they didn't ban nothing for no reason. It's illegal here too, thankfully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen " Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Partial-birth abortion isn’t even the accepted medical term for this either, so that’s a loaded term to use given it’s from the political arena. The medical community doesn't use the term because it was never a legitimate medical practice. It was something some morally repulsive doctors starting doing. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court upheld the ban, so they didn't ban nothing for no reason. It's illegal here too, thankfully. " It is the same procedure used after late term miscarriages (intact d&e). You don’t need to “remind” me of anything, thank you. Stop patronising people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too. "Here is what Clinton actually said: “I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find it ironic that the looney left criticise the Queen and the Lords for being unelected. If they were elected, our system would basically be the American system, which is the one they are now protesting against and ever critical of. Some people have a perpetual need to complain. " You posted that with apparently no sense of irony. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? " She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice.""Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read the wikipage, and it says "A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" So a doctor can seek to defend themselves on these grounds after they have been accused. They may or may not be successful. That is not the same thing as an automatic exemption. So it's easy to see why someone would vote against doctors having to defend themselves in this manner. " Do you agree that abortion after a fetus is viable is wrong for every reason other than to save the mothers life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct." Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. " I don't think she's had a hard life paying bills and up early with loads of stress... she met Donald Trump ffs! that's it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. " my nanna's 98..she deserves more.In general I live in one of the most deprived areas of britian, and obviously thats been worse for my elders over the years. Its time people actually THINK why we have 'royals'...deep fucking down not ONE person can ever give a reasonable argument on why any bloodline be it black,white,red,yellow,blue has any difference over anyone. It's shocking that people believe this shit...that's the fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?"Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so." No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read the wikipage, and it says "A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" So a doctor can seek to defend themselves on these grounds after they have been accused. They may or may not be successful. That is not the same thing as an automatic exemption. So it's easy to see why someone would vote against doctors having to defend themselves in this manner. Do you agree that abortion after a fetus is viable is wrong for every reason other than to save the mothers life? " Glad to see we cleared up that voting against the 2003 act does not mean Clinton favours late term abortions on the grounds of mental health, which is what your original claim was. I think 'to save a mother's life' is a good guideline but there are cases where the impact of pregnancy on the mother's health is going to be huge and life long, and so there needs to be provision for this as well. I realise you're getting your kicks fantasising about evil SJWs who want to allow late term abortions just because a woman is feeling a bit sad about life, but they don't actually exist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. my nanna's 98..she deserves more.In general I live in one of the most deprived areas of britian, and obviously thats been worse for my elders over the years. Its time people actually THINK why we have 'royals'...deep fucking down not ONE person can ever give a reasonable argument on why any bloodline be it black,white,red,yellow,blue has any difference over anyone. It's shocking that people believe this shit...that's the fact." m You sound quite cross. I respect her. I like having a royal family. She is respected the world over and people love our traditions. I am in full support of a royal family and they generate far more income than they cost. I’m definitely not getting into a debate about that. Saying that people have lived in deprived areas over the generations is fine, I have no issue. I could come up with my own family tales but it’s not relevant to what I’m saying. She’s doing an amazing job, living her life for her country and I respect that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I read the wikipage, and it says "A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" So a doctor can seek to defend themselves on these grounds after they have been accused. They may or may not be successful. That is not the same thing as an automatic exemption. So it's easy to see why someone would vote against doctors having to defend themselves in this manner. Do you agree that abortion after a fetus is viable is wrong for every reason other than to save the mothers life? Glad to see we cleared up that voting against the 2003 act does not mean Clinton favours late term abortions on the grounds of mental health, which is what your original claim was. " I stand by my claim. You've proved absolutely nothing. There are no health conditions that wouldn't be a threat to the mothers life, other than bullshit terms to justify the unjustifable. " I think 'to save a mother's life' is a good guideline but there are cases where the impact of pregnancy on the mother's health is going to be huge and life long, and so there needs to be provision for this as well. " No there aren't, you just made that up. If you think the mothers health comes out of a partial birth abortion unharmed then you are delusional as well as ignorant. There's a reason we don't allow it here and the medical community doesn't sanction it. " I realise you're getting your kicks fantasising about evil SJWs who want to allow late term abortions just because a woman is feeling a bit sad about life, but they don't actually exist. " You just proved they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. " What is your insistence that Dubious, or I or others have stated we are pro this practice about? Not one of us has argued for or against. What is your issue with being corrected on the actual term murder when it has a legal basing? I’d have thought you’d have welcomed the opportunity to use correct factual terms rather than rely on emotive rhetoric for presenting your opinion. You spend enough time demanding it from others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I stand by my claim. You've proved absolutely nothing. There are no health conditions that wouldn't be a threat to the mothers life, other than bullshit terms to justify the unjustifable." You stand by your claim even though I've quoted what the act says, and it does not support you. OK. The rest of your post is yet more emotive foot stamping and desperation to put people in boxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health. "Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position! It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother. That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies. So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private. I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. What is your insistence that Dubious, or I or others have stated we are pro this practice about? Not one of us has argued for or against. " Because the person above you just confirmed they are for the practice in the right circumstances. Thankfully we live in a country where our law is based on medical facts and not ideology. " What is your issue with being corrected on the actual term murder when it has a legal basing? I’d have thought you’d have welcomed the opportunity to use correct factual terms rather than rely on emotive rhetoric for presenting your opinion. You spend enough time demanding it from others. " You've read 1984, you know the power of language. I'm not going to surrender my common sense to pedantic legal distinctions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's a reason we don't allow it here and the medical community doesn't sanction it. " Missed this before. The UK does allow abortion after 24 weeks - "If the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. What is your insistence that Dubious, or I or others have stated we are pro this practice about? Not one of us has argued for or against. Because the person above you just confirmed they are for the practice in the right circumstances. Thankfully we live in a country where our law is based on medical facts and not ideology. What is your issue with being corrected on the actual term murder when it has a legal basing? I’d have thought you’d have welcomed the opportunity to use correct factual terms rather than rely on emotive rhetoric for presenting your opinion. You spend enough time demanding it from others. You've read 1984, you know the power of language. I'm not going to surrender my common sense to pedantic legal distinctions." I’m amazed at your responses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health.
Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position!
It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother.
That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies.
So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private.
I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable?"As we already established, the law has a provision for saving the mothers life. Not that the medical community ever thinks that would happen. So she doesn't just want to save the mothers life, she wants catch all terms around "health" that allow the practice to go on as normal. Just research the subject a little, understand what it is and ask yourself whether you really think a womens health can come out of that procedure unharmed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. " Could you clarify exactly what it is that you believe anyone posting here is not condemning? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. What is your insistence that Dubious, or I or others have stated we are pro this practice about? Not one of us has argued for or against. Because the person above you just confirmed they are for the practice in the right circumstances. Thankfully we live in a country where our law is based on medical facts and not ideology. What is your issue with being corrected on the actual term murder when it has a legal basing? I’d have thought you’d have welcomed the opportunity to use correct factual terms rather than rely on emotive rhetoric for presenting your opinion. You spend enough time demanding it from others. You've read 1984, you know the power of language. I'm not going to surrender my common sense to pedantic legal distinctions. I’m amazed at your responses. " I'm amazed at yours. Why don't you go campaign to change the law in this country then? We don't even have a bullshit provision for when the mothers life is in danger? Surely we need that. Surely the medical community would back you. Don't be so naive. There are no such circumstances. That's why we don't have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. my nanna's 98..she deserves more.In general I live in one of the most deprived areas of britian, and obviously thats been worse for my elders over the years. Its time people actually THINK why we have 'royals'...deep fucking down not ONE person can ever give a reasonable argument on why any bloodline be it black,white,red,yellow,blue has any difference over anyone. It's shocking that people believe this shit...that's the fact.m You sound quite cross. I respect her. I like having a royal family. She is respected the world over and people love our traditions. I am in full support of a royal family and they generate far more income than they cost. I’m definitely not getting into a debate about that. Saying that people have lived in deprived areas over the generations is fine, I have no issue. I could come up with my own family tales but it’s not relevant to what I’m saying. She’s doing an amazing job, living her life for her country and I respect that. " Whilst you may not want a debate on the cost of the royals, I would as what they bring is negligible, its about 17 to 20 mil they bring for leisure and tourism YET what they earn off it is far more!! so you could well argue we as people wouldn't loose anything & they would (in fact we'd be better off as it would free up some council money and get rid of the sovereign grant act. FFS the crown estate makes that much it has a surplus!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. What is your insistence that Dubious, or I or others have stated we are pro this practice about? Not one of us has argued for or against. Because the person above you just confirmed they are for the practice in the right circumstances. Thankfully we live in a country where our law is based on medical facts and not ideology. What is your issue with being corrected on the actual term murder when it has a legal basing? I’d have thought you’d have welcomed the opportunity to use correct factual terms rather than rely on emotive rhetoric for presenting your opinion. You spend enough time demanding it from others. You've read 1984, you know the power of language. I'm not going to surrender my common sense to pedantic legal distinctions. I’m amazed at your responses. I'm amazed at yours. Why don't you go campaign to change the law in this country then? We don't even have a bullshit provision for when the mothers life is in danger? Surely we need that. Surely the medical community would back you. Don't be so naive. There are no such circumstances. That's why we don't have it. " I think you’re a little out on a limb, and struggling to understand what others have and haven’t posted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. Regardless of the term used, you yourself still described it as partially born, but the head isn’t out. That’s not born. At all. And I’m just pointing out that you’re wrong to keep calling it murder. I understand why you want to rely on the emotive connotations of the phrases, but you should be able to construct your argument without doing so. No I'll call it what is it thanks. You can call it whatever you need to help you sleep at night. None of you have any right to be calling Trump out on his morals when you don't condemn this kind of thing. Could you clarify exactly what it is that you believe anyone posting here is not condemning?" Partial birth abortion for any other reason than saving the mothers life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health.
Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position!
It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother.
That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies.
So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private.
I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable?
As we already established, the law has a provision for saving the mothers life. Not that the medical community ever thinks that would happen. So she doesn't just want to save the mothers life, she wants catch all terms around "health" that allow the practice to go on as normal. Just research the subject a little, understand what it is and ask yourself whether you really think a womens health can come out of that procedure unharmed. "I think you are just transferring your own views onto Clinton’s to be honest. It seems clear to me that she is talking about a real and present threat to the mother’s life if the birth continues. It is entirely your interpretation that she is somehow referring also to long term mental health issues. Although your argument doesn’t even make sense, as those issues would come about as a result of such a procedure, whereas she was clearly talking about a procedure to prevent likely loss of life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health.
Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position!
It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother.
That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies.
So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private.
I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable?
As we already established, the law has a provision for saving the mothers life. Not that the medical community ever thinks that would happen. So she doesn't just want to save the mothers life, she wants catch all terms around "health" that allow the practice to go on as normal. Just research the subject a little, understand what it is and ask yourself whether you really think a womens health can come out of that procedure unharmed.
I think you are just transferring your own views onto Clinton’s to be honest.
It seems clear to me that she is talking about a real and present threat to the mother’s life if the birth continues.
It is entirely your interpretation that she is somehow referring also to long term mental health issues. Although your argument doesn’t even make sense, as those issues would come about as a result of such a procedure, whereas she was clearly talking about a procedure to prevent likely loss of life."So you want to change the law in this country then? If she's right, what an injustice it must be that all these women in the UK can't get late term abortions for any reason other than to save their life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health.
Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position!
It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother.
That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies.
So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private.
I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable?
As we already established, the law has a provision for saving the mothers life. Not that the medical community ever thinks that would happen. So she doesn't just want to save the mothers life, she wants catch all terms around "health" that allow the practice to go on as normal. Just research the subject a little, understand what it is and ask yourself whether you really think a womens health can come out of that procedure unharmed.
I think you are just transferring your own views onto Clinton’s to be honest.
It seems clear to me that she is talking about a real and present threat to the mother’s life if the birth continues.
It is entirely your interpretation that she is somehow referring also to long term mental health issues. Although your argument doesn’t even make sense, as those issues would come about as a result of such a procedure, whereas she was clearly talking about a procedure to prevent likely loss of life."I agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you want to change the law in this country then? If she's right, what an injustice it must be that all these women in the UK can't get late term abortions for any reason other than to save their life." Wrong again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need to get your moral compass straight
And you need to stop making assumptions about my beliefs. Nowhere in my post have I made any comments about the rights and wrongs of any part of it. I just thought that someone who a few posts earlier who told someone to get their facts straight before they post might want to do the same thing himself.
It's called partial birth abortion because the head isn't out yet. So yes my facts are correct. You called me pedantic the other day, so you're splitting hairs on the definition of murder for what purpose? If you think there's nothing wrong with killing someone because their umbilical cord isn't cut then there's something very wrong with you. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that's murder.
He didn't say he agreed with it, he just gave the definition.
I thought the head always came out first. Why would they wait till the baby was being born to kill it?
I've absolutely no idea why they would do it. You can Google the details, it's repulsive. Oh and Bernie Sanders voted against the ban as well too.
Here is what Clinton actually said:
“I have said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s choice."
Let’s not have facts cloud BB’s need to judge, eh?
Those aren't facts. That is a statement from someone who admits they have a different public and private persona. It's the typical vauge statement from someone who wants to fudge the issue. If you want to talk facts, she has categorically said that a fetus has no constitutional rights. So until the moment it's 100% born then you can do what the fuck you like. The act had a provision to save the mothers life, which is not something we ever perceive would happen in this country or any other for that matter. What Clinton wants is a catch all term that allows the sick practice to go on, under the pretense of benefiting the mothers health.
Of course those are facts! That is her clearly and unambiguously explaining her position!
It isn’t vague at all - it is quite specific in saying that she only supports such an extreme action where the mother’s life is threatened by continuing with the birth, and even then that it has to be the decision of the mother.
That is a million miles from your apparent claim that she somehow is fine and dandy about murdering babies.
So what if she has a different private and public persona? It’s a bit of a leap of logic to infer from that that anything she publicly states is the opposite of what she would state in private.
I would ask you this though - do you think her view as stated above is actually that unreasonable?
As we already established, the law has a provision for saving the mothers life. Not that the medical community ever thinks that would happen. So she doesn't just want to save the mothers life, she wants catch all terms around "health" that allow the practice to go on as normal. Just research the subject a little, understand what it is and ask yourself whether you really think a womens health can come out of that procedure unharmed.
I think you are just transferring your own views onto Clinton’s to be honest.
It seems clear to me that she is talking about a real and present threat to the mother’s life if the birth continues.
It is entirely your interpretation that she is somehow referring also to long term mental health issues. Although your argument doesn’t even make sense, as those issues would come about as a result of such a procedure, whereas she was clearly talking about a procedure to prevent likely loss of life.
I agree. "Read the act then. The act allows for late term abortions that save the mothers life, just like in this country. Why does she need broader provisions? Is the law in our country wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you want to change the law in this country then? If she's right, what an injustice it must be that all these women in the UK can't get late term abortions for any reason other than to save their life. Wrong again. " Saying wrong doesn't make it wrong. There is no time limit on abortions in the UK that are done to save the mothers life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you want to change the law in this country then? If she's right, what an injustice it must be that all these women in the UK can't get late term abortions for any reason other than to save their life. Wrong again. Saying wrong doesn't make it wrong. There is no time limit on abortions in the UK that are done to save the mothers life. " Saying murder... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So this thread is no longer about the queen it seems." It's an issue the OP cares about. As much as we've gone on a tangent, I content that the people supporting Hillary Clinton's abortion views have no right to criticise Trumps morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So this thread is no longer about the queen it seems. It's an issue the OP cares about. As much as we've gone on a tangent, I content that the people supporting Hillary Clinton's abortion views have no right to criticise Trumps morals. " Absolute bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you want to change the law in this country then? If she's right, what an injustice it must be that all these women in the UK can't get late term abortions for any reason other than to save their life. Wrong again. Saying wrong doesn't make it wrong. There is no time limit on abortions in the UK that are done to save the mothers life. " I've quoted the law, twice, that says late term abortion is allowed for reasons of the mothers health in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Respect to the queen. Diplomatic and never says anything out of line even when not paid the right respect Hats off to you Queen Hats off for doing her job as head of state?? She’s 92! It’s not a job it’s a life. She’s given her life she could walk away if she chose but she doesn’t. She deserves and has earned respect for her dedication and commitment in my opinion. my nanna's 98..she deserves more.In general I live in one of the most deprived areas of britian, and obviously thats been worse for my elders over the years. Its time people actually THINK why we have 'royals'...deep fucking down not ONE person can ever give a reasonable argument on why any bloodline be it black,white,red,yellow,blue has any difference over anyone. It's shocking that people believe this shit...that's the fact.m You sound quite cross. I respect her. I like having a royal family. She is respected the world over and people love our traditions. I am in full support of a royal family and they generate far more income than they cost. I’m definitely not getting into a debate about that. Saying that people have lived in deprived areas over the generations is fine, I have no issue. I could come up with my own family tales but it’s not relevant to what I’m saying. She’s doing an amazing job, living her life for her country and I respect that. Whilst you may not want a debate on the cost of the royals, I would as what they bring is negligible, its about 17 to 20 mil they bring for leisure and tourism YET what they earn off it is far more!! so you could well argue we as people wouldn't loose anything & they would (in fact we'd be better off as it would free up some council money and get rid of the sovereign grant act. FFS the crown estate makes that much it has a surplus!!" How do they earn from tourism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could you clarify exactly what it is that you believe anyone posting here is not condemning? Partial birth abortion for any other reason than saving the mothers life. " Can you point to where I’ve expressed an opinion either way, please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
