Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Running Behind, getting caught up...

Not surprisingly, I've been a fan of Keith Olbermann for MANY YEARS now, but this might be the single best broadcast I've ever seen from him...




And here's some other funny, and vaguely relevant stuff for your enjoyment...

Boys have swag, men have style, GENTLEMEN have CLASS.  Patrick Stewart is THE MAN.


If Obama has any balls at all, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning will receive full pardons by the end of his administration.  (Spoiler: They won't.)  And when they don't under Hillary either, maybe the Right will begin to understand what the Left doesn't like about her.

I probably hate anti-vaxers more than any other camp in the legion of science denialism.  They do orders of magnitude more harm than the Creationists and Climate-Deniers combined.  (And as the parents of two autistic boys, my wife and I have had more run-ins with "Autism Andy's" than I can count. It's all I can do not punch them in the face. If you won't (notice I didn't say"can't"!) vaccinate your children, they should be taken away form you. PERIOD. FUCK YOU. STICK 'EM, JAB 'EM and IMMUNIZE 'EM.(And while you're rotting in jail for child abuse/neglect, we'll immunize YOU while we're at it.) (Asshole.) I am so sick of hearing the media (and fucking OPRAH!) coddle these ignorant fucking morons, and I'm glad the press is FINALLY beginning to call them out on their genocidal bullshit, even if it is about Seventeen Years too late!


Best argument against religion that I've even heard:


Yep.


Kung-fu Panda... (lol)


Probably. (I love both. What the hell, people?!)


It would put me out of a job, but they've got a point!




74 comments:

  1. "If Obama has any balls at all, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning will receive full pardons by the end of his administration. (Spoiler: They won't.) And when they don't under Hillary either, maybe the Right will begin to understand what the Left doesn't like about her."

    When those two do things for the betterment of all mankind instead of their own personal reasons, then perhaps they will get that pardon you pray for. Otherwise they stay the criminals they are.
    You know, there are plenty of communist nations you can move to that think just like you do. You are NOT forced to stay in the US. Of course there isn't a nation in the world that wouldn't jail YOU for speaking publically they way you do. So, enjoy your freedom while this is still a free nation .... thanks to George Washington and the good doctor Martin Luther King.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Which Two? Obama and Clinton or Snowden and Manning? (touche)

      2) So... You're perfectly fine with what the NSA was doing then? Funny, you're the first Conservative I've spoken to who is, though hardly the first to still condemn Snowden and Manning. You hate whist-blowers more than "Big Gov't" apparently. (What else is new?) And you hate Obama more than you like freedom. (Again...)

      3) "Of course there isn't a nation in the world that wouldn't jail YOU for speaking publically (sic) they (sic) way you do." Huh?! WHAT?! Sorry, Will... but I defy you to name a SINGLE country that would "arrest me" for criticizing the idiot right-wing of America. You lot aren't as popular - locally, let alone GLOBALLY - as you think you are. (And your numbers continue to dwindle.)

      Delete
    2. "If Obama has any balls at all"

      Pres Obama is an "idiot right-wing" person? Wow, that's the first I heard that. I guess you mind is too small to understand what I'm talking about, so I'll let you alone on this issue.
      Name a country that would NOT jail you for dissing it's leader and government the way you do ours?

      Delete
  2. "I am so sick of hearing the media (and fucking OPRAH!) coddle these ignorant fucking morons, and I'm glad the press is FINALLY beginning to call them out on their genocidal bullshit, even if it is about Seventeen Years too late!"

    Let's do the "genocidal" math. For your small incomplete liberal mind I found this site:
    http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html
    It says there has been 6336 deaths from not getting vaccines since 2007 (that's 8 years, you can double that for your 16 year concern about genocide).

    Now, not that you're REALLY worried about genocide, but I found this site that stupid liberals with their ignorant fucking minds caused in the name of "freedom" (of course those freedoms don't count when liberals don't want you to have them ... you stupid HYPOCRITES):
    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    That site shows 57 MILLION FUCKING ABORTIONS since 1973. That is 40 years, so we'll divide the number by 2 to get an equal comparison about deaths caused by non-vaccination v abortions (EACH ARE FREEDOM OF CHOICE). That leaves us with approximately 13,000 deaths because of CHOOSING to not get a vaccination compared to 28 FUCKING MILLION deaths because of CHOOSING to get an abortion during your 18 year time frame where you are crying about a couple thousand deaths.
    You are a fucking moronic hypocrite of the worst kind for whining about a parents CHOICE to not vaccinate while demanding a parents CHOICE to abort.

    GET THE FUCK OFF OUR INTERNET! You and your ilk are killing at the rate of a million a year and you whine about a couple deaths a year. You want freedoms as long as YOU have that freedom. But, if someone ELSE wants those freedoms you cry about their ability to handle the freedoms they have. Here, Eddie, coddle this: you are a fucking hypocrite of the worst and most dangerous kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah... Abortion. Getting working class white people to vote against their economic interest since 1973. Nothing like pining for a world in which the choice of if, whether, and with whom a woman bears children lies not with the woman, but with every man she walks past, every single second, of every single day of her life. Oh yeah, and in which bodily sovereignty is granted to fucking CORPSES, but continues to be denied to LIVING WOMEN EVERYWHERE.

      As for my "get(ting) the fuck of the internet?" Go fuck yourself. If you don't like what I write or say, no one is forcing you to read or listen to it. You have CHOICE - you know, as in FREEDOM? So you can comment or GTF out, however YOU wish. *I* am not going ANYWHERE.

      As for freedom? You're freedom end the minute you harm another person. Anti-Vaxxers harm their children, and harm OTHER PEOPLE'S children. You can argue that abortion does harm, but so does every effort you lot do to stop it...

      ...Mainly because you never do ANYTHING "for the betterment of all mankind instead of their own personal reasons."

      You lot will never win Nationally on abortion. Period. (And it's a losing strategy in the long term LOCALLY as well.) Because enough people (and far from just liberals) understand the implications (far better than you idiots do) every time CORE ABORTION RIGHTS look to be threatened. Oh sure, you guys got cute and started regulating clinics out of existence - putting millions of women's health at risk, just to stop a few abortions, while you did it. (So much for "small gov't." I guess big Gov't fine when it suit your scumbag RW agenda.) But America has gotten wise to that. What was it you said about Obamacre? "Don't let the gov't get between the doctor and patient?" (Even though it DOESN'T.) Unless, apparently, we can stop abortions. Then WHO CARES about the patient, even if their health is at risk. I mean... The woman's body can shut that all down, can't it?

      Hillary will run on what you lot call "women's issues." And she will WIN on what you lot call "women's issues." (BTW? I call them HUMAN issues, but I wouldn't expect a pes-brained, misogynistic RW'er to understand WHY.)

      To summarize: Fuck you.

      Delete
    2. Also?

      Variola Major (look it up) killed 15 Million people worldwide in 1967 ALONE. Do you know what finally eradicated it for good? VACCINATIONS.

      ...AND the horse you rode in on.

      Delete
    3. I don't want to "win" anything with abortion, I simply want to point out how many deaths occur from it while you cry about a couple thousand from immunizations. And that STILL doesn't add up to the genocide you lot has created with abortion. Sorry, you whiney ass excuses don't add up to anything. Even your false claim of "putting millions of women's health at risk". That has never happened, it is just something you little mind conjures up to appease you own genocidal thoughts and demands while you cry about a couple thousand deaths over a 17 year period.

      BTW, when you lie with the stats you bring it only makes you look more like a liberal. The WHO says only 2 million died in 67 from small pox. 15 million contracted it, not died from it. No wonder no one can believe anything the liberals says, they constantly lie to justify their own craziness. Keep up the good work, Eddie, I expect (and get) nothing less from you. I guess the one constant from you, Eddie, is the completely inaccurate stats you bring to support all your whines. If you gonna act dumb you should expect dumb people to agree with you.

      Delete
    4. "As for my "get(ting) the fuck of the internet?" Go fuck yourself. If you don't like what I write or say, no one is forcing you to read or listen to it. You have CHOICE - you know, as in FREEDOM? So you can comment or GTF out, however YOU wish. *I* am not going ANYWHERE."

      You know ... that is quite funny. It seems there are lots of RW media outlets who do the same as you (misinformation and lie) and there are plenty of LW'rs out there spouting off about how awful and dispicable those outlets are and trying to find ways of shutting them down because of the lies and misinformation being brought. In fact, you're one of them. All the while those same (and you) LW'rs have the same damn CHOICE and/or FREEDOM to watch/listen or not watch/listen to them. You fully support all LW sites that attempt to shut down the RW media outlets with wholehearted glee, yet cuss at someone who points out the misinformation and lies you spew.
      How ironic

      I guess it turns out those damn RW outlets have every right to remind you of your FREEDOMS and CHOICE not to watch or listen to them no matter how much misinformation and lies they bring to the airwaves. And they can tell you: "Go fuck yourself. If you don't like what I write or say, no one is forcing you to read or listen to it.".

      Delete
    5. Hey, Eddie. Found another one for you. Go here: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Marin-mom-lashes-out-at-measles-party-media-6078083.php
      That story shows the insane hatred LW'rs have of personal choice that they don't agree with. This mom has not vaccinated her kids because her doctor gave her orders not to. How does that fit into your "PERIOD. FUCK YOU. STICK 'EM, JAB 'EM and IMMUNIZE 'EM." whine? Perhaps when you know the FACTS of a situation you won't rush to judgement like some crazed RW'r would. But facts and your posts seldom have any relationship with each other. Ever find that link to the 15 million dead people from chicken pox in 1967 yet? Have you ever consider posting a correction of your misinformation? Or are you gonna let it fly and keep misleading people?
      And, don't forget ... you have the freedom and choice not to read anything I write. I would hate to infect you with honesty. That may ruin your reputation as a good liberal.

      Delete
    6. How does it fit? It fits PERFECTLY. Notice how I emphasised that I said "won't" ratehr than "can't." There are plenty of people who CAN'T be vaccinated for various reasons - chemotherapy patient, transplant patients taking imuno-suppressors, HIV/AIDS patients, patients who experience extreme allergic/anaphalactic responses to vaccines, etc... I've MET some of these people personally, in fact. Which is precisely who EVERYONE ELSE must be vaccinated! To surround THEM with an inoculated circle of immune people,so that the disease cannot reach them. Thanks once again fro PROVING my point, as you did with the 1967/15M number. (Go see my latest video, i fyou would like to hear my reply to THAT.)

      Delete
    7. Eddie, I do not watch videos of middle-aged bald men sitting in their basement doing blogs. Sorry to dissapoint you.
      But, to keep this one going ... I will never understand your unfounded fear of a few people who CHOOSE not to vaccinate. How in world can it affect anyone else if everyone else IS getting vaccinated? After all your unfounded threats of jailing and taking kids away from parents, there isn't a chance in hell that anything related to your unfounded fear that another national epidemic can occur. The government already requires children to be immunized to enter public schools ... so what do you care if a couple CHOOSE not to. It will NEVER affect you or anyone else. At least not in the scope that you irrationally think it will.
      Yet, you want some to give up their freedom of choice because you fear they can't handle that freedom, while you demand the freedom of choice for others to kill randomly as they see fit. So, your small liberal mind will still whine about 6,000 deaths over a 17 year time frame and demand the right to kill at the pace of 1 million a year simply because you have an unfounded fear of something. You're as bad as the right-wingers you constantly complain about.

      Delete
    8. Then: "Hell, you didn't even watch the video until I told you to. How are you expected to follow along with simple conversations?"

      Now: "Eddie, I do not watch videos of middle-aged bald men sitting in their basement doing blogs."

      Another classic moment from William.

      As to the comparison between abortion and vaccinations, abortion isn't a public health concern. Nobody has the freedom to create or exacerbate a public health problem. The return of measles and mumps makes it more than an "unfounded fear".

      A fetus is not a citizen. Moreover, a fetus is not comparable to a person that has the support of a family and of society in general. Contrast the abortion of a 4-week pregnancy with the murder of a five year-old child. They aren't the same thing, and for good reason. The only possible reasoning behind equating the two is religious, as if all life and all potential life has a "soul" or whatever, and therefore it's all the same.

      And, amazingly, religious arguments hold no sway in the public sphere. Who knew?

      Delete
    9. " Contrast the abortion of a 4-week pregnancy with the murder of a five year-old child."

      Scott Peterson is on death row because he killed (murdered) 2 people. One was a live woman the other an unborn human. How do you explain that? BTW that happened in the liberal state of California, so I hardly think religion has anything to do with it. Please try to bring some kind of cohesive argument next time, ok?

      "The return of measles and mumps makes it more than an "unfounded fear"."

      How could there possibly be a "return" when it was never eradicated? Besides, the government requires vaccinations to enter public schools. How could any of those kids get any of those diseases? You're speaking out of uninformed ignorant stances too. But, it is nice to see you not only are "glad" to hear about cops who kill innocent people, but you support killing a million humans per year.

      "Another classic moment from William."

      The unrecognized difference is that I am not commenting on that article of Eddies. If I was then you would have a point. Since I am not, then you do not. That was easy.

      Delete
    10. "Scott Peterson is on death row because he killed (murdered) 2 people."

      Was his wife at the 4-week stage? Do your research.

      "How do you explain that?"

      The will of the mother, at that point, was to carry the term to pregnancy. She was over seven months pregnant at the time. Besides, even if you had a point, a jury decision doesn't overrule the SCOTUS, as I would hope you're aware.

      "BTW that happened in the liberal state of California, so I hardly think religion has anything to do with it."

      California isn't particularly liberal. And the only problem I have with the Peterson verdict is that people without critical thinking skills use it to oppose abortion as a whole, as if the stage of pregnancy and the will of the mother aren't important factors. Notice what I said about the religious argument making all abortion unacceptable based on a belief. The Peterson case doesn't assert that belief, nor does it rely on it.

      "How could there possibly be a "return" when it was never eradicated?"

      What term to you prefer, "resurgence"?

      "Besides, the government requires vaccinations to enter public schools."

      The federal government, or state governments?

      "The unrecognized difference is that I am not commenting on that article of Eddies."

      Irrelevant, because you said you don't watch the videos. That would apply to articles which contain his videos which you've commented on as well. Yet, you expected me to watch a video in order to participate in conversation, when obviously you didn't even watch it yourself. Shameful.

      And, if you say you watched that video, then you do "watch videos of middle-aged bald men sitting in their basement doing blogs". Which would mean you have no excuse not to watch the video Eddie mentioned, unless you just aren't confident in the argument you were making.

      Delete
    11. "Was his wife at the 4-week stage?"

      Irrelevant, because it was still an unborn human.

      "The will of the mother, at that point, was to carry the term to pregnancy."

      How do YOU know what her "will" was? Are you now saying that any unborn baby should be classified as "human" after seven months and that any death of that child would result in recourse from the justice system? Hmm, I thought I remember you saying that the fetus isn't "human" until it is born (in previous abortion discussions), have you now changed your mind?

      "Irrelevant, because you said you don't watch the videos."

      Completely relevant, you're being very dishonest. It wasn't the video of Eddie that you had not watched and were commenting on. It was a video that was a reference part of the article. I have not watched ANY of the videos of Eddie, but many of the ones he uses as reference. You on the other hand are dishonestly comparing apples to oranges by saying I need to watch all videos of Eddie in order to comment logically. Sorry, you are wrong.

      "Yet, you expected me to watch a video in order to participate in conversation, when obviously you didn't even watch it yourself. Shameful."

      It wasn't a video of Eddie that you should have watched. Lying isn't very helpful in your argument at this point. Lying is shameful.

      "The federal government, or state governments?"

      Irrelevant. The government requires it.

      Delete
    12. "Irrelevant, because it was still an unborn human."

      That's your religious viewpoint. It has no bearing on anything.

      "How do YOU know what her "will" was?"

      How would she not be planning on carrying the pregnancy to term at that stage?

      "Are you now saying that any unborn baby should be classified as "human" after seven months and that any death of that child would result in recourse from the justice system?"

      There's actually no such thing as an "unborn baby". I didn't say anything about classifying anything as "human", because that term was never in question, and I've said that I don't think that abortions should be allowed after the first trimester.

      "Hmm, I thought I remember you saying that the fetus isn't "human" until it is born (in previous abortion discussions), have you now changed your mind?"

      You should allow for the possibility that you are not remembering that accurately, instead of trying to hold me accountable for your fantasies. I never said any such thing. You are the one who fixates on "human", as if that is supposed to have any relevance.

      "I have not watched ANY of the videos of Eddie, but many of the ones he uses as reference."

      That's interesting, because you said that you took much of your original comment on that thread from his video.

      "You on the other hand are dishonestly comparing apples to oranges by saying I need to watch all videos of Eddie in order to comment logically."

      No, I'm saying that you expected me to watch a video of Eddie in order to participate in a conversation, while you hold yourself to a different standard.

      "It wasn't a video of Eddie that you should have watched."

      Would you like to bet your presence here on that?

      "Irrelevant. The government requires it."

      It's not irrelevant at all, because states make their own laws. Again, are you talking about state governments, or the federal government?

      Delete
    13. "That's your religious viewpoint. It has no bearing on anything."

      Are you saying the State government used religion to base their decision to charge him with 2 murders on religion? Wow, that's quite an admission. Not a very logical one, but I'll take the source (you) into consideration.

      "That's interesting, because you said that you took much of your original comment on that thread from his video."

      Oh? Prove it.

      "Again, are you talking about state governments, or the federal government?"

      Again, irrelevant. The government requires it. If you have information that says otherwise feel free to bring it.


      So, in the end, you can't defend your hypocrisy about a persons FREEDOM OF CHOICE to not have vaccinations and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to have an abortion. And your only defense is to attempt to take the discussion off-topic. You're just like Eddie and many right-wingers who feel that just because they don't LIKE the freedom you have you should not have it. You extremists are so dangerous to this country.

      Delete
    14. "Are you saying the State government used religion to base their decision to charge him with 2 murders on religion?"

      Obviously not: "The Peterson case doesn't assert that belief, nor does it rely on it."

      "The government requires it."

      And different states make different allowances. A state which allows for "philosophical" exceptions doesn't require children to be vaccinated in order to attend school. You're the one who made the claim of fact that "the government" required vaccinations, so make an effort to back it up.

      "So, in the end, you can't defend your hypocrisy about a persons FREEDOM OF CHOICE to not have vaccinations and FREEDOM OF CHOICE to have an abortion."

      Vaccinations are a public health concern. You don't have "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to put your community at risk.

      "And your only defense is to attempt to take the discussion off-topic."

      What "off-topic" argument are you referring to? I addressed your idiotic comparison between abortion and vaccinations.

      I notice that you skipped this: "Would you like to bet your presence here on that?" I suspect you know that you're lying, so you can't take the bet.

      On that note, you: "Did you watch Eddie's video? Because he said the same thing. No, I guess you didn't watch the video or you'd be saying the same thing about him."
      How would you know "he said the same thing" if you didn't watch his video?

      Even better:
      Me: "Eddie didn't say anything remotely similar to that."
      You: "Yes, he mentioned harm in his video."

      As to "Prove it": "Actually, if you ever decide to watch the video, a lot of what I said came from it."

      The only video on that page is of Eddie, as you can see: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html

      Delete
    15. "As to "Prove it": "Actually, if you ever decide to watch the video, a lot of what I said came from it.""

      Ah ha ha, you are a complete idiot, aren't you? That was his first or second video effort at blogging. Of course I watched one in order to make an informed decision as to what kind of person was doing the blogging. When I found out he was a blading middle-aged man blogging from his basement I stopped watching him. I took the effort to make an informed decision, you have refused to do so. Bring that evidence of police injustice based on race. If you can't then you are just being an uninformed bigot. Bring your proof of racial injustice. And, again, your assumptions are irrelevant.

      Delete
    16. "That was his first or second video effort at blogging. Of course I watched one in order to make an informed decision as to what kind of person was doing the blogging."

      You can watch a video in order to "make an informed decision", but not when he addresses what you say and expects a response? That doesn't really work for you.

      "When I found out he was a blading middle-aged man blogging from his basement I stopped watching him."

      So your point is that you're obsessed with appearance, as opposed to content? That's awfully shallow of you.

      As it stands:
      "It wasn't a video of Eddie that you should have watched." - Proven a lie.
      "Lying is shameful." - Yes, it certainly is.

      Delete
    17. "You can watch a video in order to "make an informed decision", but not when he addresses what you say and expects a response?"

      Am I required to watch all his videos? If I don't respond to a certain article then perhaps the issue does not interest me. If I respond to a comment he makes it does not mean I have to watch a video to be able to respond to a written comment. You, on the other hand, was commenting about his video and not watching it. Therefor you were making an unintelligent/uninformed comment. Not unexpected from you and your habit of being uninformed and unintelligent..

      "Vaccinations are a public health concern. You don't have "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to put your community at risk."

      Umm, vaccinations are exposing you to the same virus that is being protected against. Are you saying that all people should be injected with the AIDS virus in order to protect them from it?
      Besides that isn't my concern about Eddies comments on that issue. It is his demand that all be vaccinated or face legal consequences for it. What about the case I brought up where the family's doctor ordered them NOT to have one? You don't believe there should be any exceptions? You really haven't thought this one through have you?

      Delete
    18. "You can watch a video in order to "make an informed decision", but not when he addresses what you say and expects a response? That doesn't really work for you."

      I can make an informed comment on what he WRITES, but I cannot if I don't read it. How can I make an informed comment on his video without watching it? I'm not like you who attempt to comment on something he hadn't even seen. If you have watched the video that you are referencing, by all means make a comment and perhaps I'll make a comment about your statement, again, like you do (commenting only on replies and not the actual article).

      "So your point is that you're obsessed with appearance, as opposed to content?"

      No, I just think it is very gay to watch a guy sitting in his basement making home videos. I'm sure you'll have a different word for that. LOL

      ""Lying is shameful." - Yes, it certainly is."

      So you shouldn't make a habit of it, from now on. OK?

      Delete
    19. "How can I make an informed comment on his video without watching it?"

      Then you should watch his videos, since being informed is more important than whether you find him sexually attractive or not.

      "I'm not like you who attempt to comment on something he hadn't even seen."

      I didn't comment on the video. I replied to what you had written. If Eddie had happened to have said the same thing as you, and he didn't, then my points would have applied to him as well.

      "If you have watched the video that you are referencing, by all means make a comment and perhaps I'll make a comment about your statement, again, like you do (commenting only on replies and not the actual article)."

      If I don't disagree with the actual article, then usually there's not much need to comment. When you say something stupid or hypocritical, then I have every right to point it out.

      "No, I just think it is very gay to watch a guy sitting in his basement making home videos."

      I don't see it as a sexual thing. It's interesting that you view it that way. You would watch him if he was younger and had more hair, and you think that video blogging has a sexual nature to it. Interesting. Or is it because he's middle-aged and balding that suddenly it became a sexual thing for you? Is that a fetish of yours?

      "So you shouldn't make a habit of it, from now on."

      You've never demonstrated a lie. In the meantime, you said that you weren't talking about one of Eddie's videos when you said I needed to watch it, when I've proven that you were talking about one of Eddie's videos. Hence, you lied.

      And twice, at that: "I have not watched ANY of the videos of Eddie, but many of the ones he uses as reference." You admitted, now, that you did watch at least one of his videos, so it was a lie to say "I have not watched ANY".

      Try again?

      Delete
    20. "You would watch him if he was younger and had more hair, and you think that video blogging has a sexual nature to it. "

      Reading Comp 101. I said it would be gay, so I wouldn't care if he was young or not ... he's still a he.

      "Then you should watch his videos, ..."

      You don't watch all his videos, why should I? I'm not commenting on it so what would be the point of watching it? If he wants me to comment I'll be glad to read anything he writes. Like the part where he wrote that I was right. Of course, that's usually a given.

      "I didn't comment on the video. I replied to what you had written."

      Sure you did. Go back and read it again and you'll see I am right again.

      "If I don't disagree with the actual article, then usually there's not much need to comment."

      There was no article for me to read. It was all video, except for the part where he wrote that I was right.

      Delete
    21. "I said it would be gay, so I wouldn't care if he was young or not ... he's still a he."

      I'm becoming inclined to think that "gay" is not a hurdle for you. Your standard is that you would watch him if he was younger and had more hair, and why would you care what he looked like if it wasn't a sexual matter for you?

      "You don't watch all his videos, why should I?"

      Because you insisted that I had to in order to comment on a topic. Why is it different for all of the threads that you post on?

      "I'm not commenting on it so what would be the point of watching it?"

      You comment on other posts which contain video. You said that you don't watch "ANY" of them (even though you admitted that you've watched at least one). Apparently, you don't see any "point" in watching "ANY" of them, so it doesn't make much sense for you to use commenting as a reason to watch any of the videos.

      "Sure you did. Go back and read it again and you'll see I am right again."

      Prove it yourself. You made the assertion, so go find something to back it up. I already gave you the link to the thread, and I already know that I responded to what you wrote.

      "There was no article for me to read."

      My comment wasn't about you.

      Delete
    22. "I'm becoming inclined to think that "gay" is not a hurdle for you."

      Are you hitting on me? Sorry, pal, I'm not gay. You'll just have to find another source for your sexual fantasies.

      "Why is it different for all of the threads that you post on?"

      If you haven't figured that out by now, you never will.

      "
      You comment on other posts which contain video."

      And the other articles have written statements or I am not commenting on the video portion. You, on the other hand, were commenting on the video without watching it.

      "You made the assertion, so go find something to back it up."

      Wow, that's quite the standard you follow there. You demand that I prove what YOU say and you demand that I prove what I say. YOU refuse to prove what YOU say and I do prove what I say. You've already linked to the article so the proof is there for you to read.

      "My comment wasn't about you."

      Everything is about me. Haven't you learned that yet? Wow, slow and uninformed.

      Delete
    23. "Are you hitting on me?"

      No, I'm not attracted to men, even younger ones who aren't balding. You're the one who needs to see that, or else you lose interest.

      "If you haven't figured that out by now, you never will."

      So you have no answer, then.

      "You, on the other hand, were commenting on the video without watching it."

      That's a lie until you prove otherwise. And you won't be able to do that.

      "You demand that I prove what YOU say and you demand that I prove what I say. YOU refuse to prove what YOU say and I do prove what I say."

      You said "prove it", and I then provided you with your own words from the other thread. So, you have to do the same, or your claim fails. If you really thought that you could just assert a fact and it would stand, then you couldn't have asked me for proof of what I said.

      "You've already linked to the article so the proof is there for you to read."

      What I've read shows that you're lying. How did that work out for you?

      "Everything is about me."

      I'm aware of your egocentric beliefs.

      Delete
    24. "No, I'm not attracted to men, even younger ones who aren't balding."

      How do you know? Is that your choice? If so, how do you know for sure if you haven't tried all the options?

      Delete
    25. "How do you know?"

      Because I don't feel any sexual attraction towards men.

      "Is that your choice?"

      No, I don't have any control over that. Do you think that you do?

      "If so, how do you know for sure if you haven't tried all the options?"

      Why would I try something that I have no inclination towards?

      You: "You, on the other hand, were commenting on the video without watching it."
      Are these questions that you really think are relevant, or are you just trying to distract from your failure to back up your claim of fact?

      Delete
    26. I've backed up all my claims of fact. You, OTOH, have not: "The will of the mother, at that point, was to carry the term to pregnancy."

      Delete
    27. "You, OTOH, have not: "The will of the mother, at that point, was to carry the term to pregnancy.""

      Again: "How would she not be planning on carrying the pregnancy to term at that stage?" What's your theory, that she was planning on getting an illegal abortion? And why would that make a difference, since it would be illegal? You didn't answer the question, so you can't very well claim that I didn't support what I said; you simply can't deal with your failure.

      And no, you did not back up your claim that I was responding to the video on that thread.

      Delete
    28. "How would she not be planning on carrying the pregnancy to term at that stage?" What's your theory, that she was planning on getting an illegal abortion?"

      It wasn't illegal to get one of those if the woman's life was in danger back then. In fact, there were a couple reasons you could get abortions legal at that time frame. Prove it was her will to carry the baby to term. You say it as if you knew her personally and what she was thinking. Did you know her? If not, well you're going to have a difficult time proving something you just ASSUME is true. That means you're going to demand that I prove otherwise.

      Just in case you're interested in discussing the "genocide" Eddie was talking about. Since you raised the issue of late term abortion ... did you know that 1.4% of abortions in 2003 were after the 21st week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy). Let's see, in one year approx 14000 viable human beings were killed. That's STILL more than the entire death toll from not getting vaccines since the date of his concern. ONE YEAR compared to a nearly a generation of time that "anti-vaxers" cause. Of course if we use continual math and figure how many viable humans potentially could have been killed over the same time frame Eddie is worried about genocide then we would have a whopping 238,000 deaths. That's 4 times more than we suffered during the Viet Nam war. Its also more than the entire death count of civilians and military (friendly side) since 2003 (https://www.iraqbodycount.org/). Yet you left-wingers support the "right" to kill at that rate.Gotta love those D&X'rs. No genocide happening there, huh? (note sarcasm)

      "And no, you did not back up your claim that I was responding to the video on that thread."

      Ok, here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html

      Delete
    29. "It wasn't illegal to get one of those if the woman's life was in danger back then."

      Was her life in danger? Absent of those very specific and time-dependent circumstances, why would she possibly get an abortion?

      "Prove it was her will to carry the baby to term."

      I don't need to "prove" any such thing, because there's no basis to believe anything otherwise. Even in the case of medical risk, that would still be a situation where the woman was trying to carry the pregnancy to term.

      "You say it as if you knew her personally and what she was thinking."

      So, you think that she simply forgot to get an abortion, and was looking into getting an illegal one six weeks after the deadline?

      "If not, well you're going to have a difficult time proving something you just ASSUME is true."

      You need to figure out the difference between reasonable conclusions and assumptions. Really, if you want to play the "question everything" game, you don't know anything at all. Do you know that your co-worker isn't a Russian spy? Why do you "ASSUME" that he isn't one?

      "That means you're going to demand that I prove otherwise."

      No, I've simply asked you to provide some reason to believe something to the contrary. You can't even do that.

      "Let's see, in one year approx 14000 viable human beings were killed. That's STILL more than the entire death toll from not getting vaccines since the date of his concern."

      Except that they aren't citizens, and they probably aren't wanted to begin with. Try to grasp that difference, because the idea of "more life" isn't better all by itself. We have plenty of people, so crying about not having millions upon millions more people isn't particularly compelling. The actual issue is when children who are part of a family and the society as a whole are killed because of irresponsible people who refuse to get their own children vaccinated. The numbers don't matter if the concern is exponentially smaller.

      Women have a right to control their own bodies, because otherwise a fetus, or even an embryo has legal dominance over a woman. That's a completely separate concept from a public health risk. There's absolutely no rationale where people have any right to endanger the lives of other people's children. Your comparison does not work.

      "Ok, here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html"

      I'm familiar with the thread. It proves you wrong. Now what?

      Delete
    30. "Was her life in danger? "

      Apparently. She is dead. You got anything else?

      "Absent of those very specific and time-dependent circumstances, why would she possibly get an abortion?"

      Ah, so you admit you're flying on assumptions and not fact? Prove what you say as fact about her intentions.

      "I don't need to "prove" any such thing, because there's no basis to believe anything otherwise. "

      So your standards are now that anyone can say anything and not be responsible for proving what they say is fact? Hmm, an interesting turn of events.

      "So, you think that she simply forgot to get an abortion, and was looking into getting an illegal one six weeks after the deadline?"

      You've already admitted there were "very specific and time-dependent circumstances" so you can't say there was a "deadline". Sorry, you lose again.

      "You need to figure out the difference between reasonable conclusions and assumptions."

      If that's true then I'll bet a majority of the abortions within the US would not fall within that category. Making them, essentially, murder. You don't think this stuff through at all do you?

      "No, I've simply asked you to provide some reason to believe something to the contrary. You can't even do that."

      You haven't provided proof of anything to be contrary of, so far. So why would I? You're simply flying with your assumptions (and statements of fact) without an inkling of evidence to support your assumptions.

      "Except that they aren't citizens, and they probably aren't wanted to begin with. "

      Changing the parameters and assuming circumstances. Never seen you do THAT before. LOL

      "We have plenty of people, so crying about not having millions upon millions more people isn't particularly compelling."

      Now, I have to assume you're Chinese. LOL Keep diggin

      "The numbers don't matter if the concern is exponentially smaller."

      Wow! I'll bet Hitler thought the same way as you.

      "Women have a right to control their own bodies, because otherwise a fetus, or even an embryo has legal dominance over a woman."

      And, hence, my question about how YOU know what Mrs. Peterson wanted to do with her body. Answer that or admit your error.

      "That's a completely separate concept from a public health risk. "

      What risk? About 99.9% of Americans are immunized. How could there possibly be a risk? Except to those who have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to not have an immunization.

      "There's absolutely no rationale where people have any right to endanger the lives of other people's children. "

      Again, about 99.9% of America is immunized. What endangerment is posed?



      Delete
    31. "Apparently. She is dead."

      Anyone who could possibly be murdered can legally get an abortion? That's interesting.

      "Ah, so you admit you're flying on assumptions and not fact?"

      So, you admit that you don't understand what "assumptions" actually are?

      "So your standards are now that anyone can say anything and not be responsible for proving what they say is fact?"

      That's amusing, coming from the person who tells me where I live and asserts that I responded to a video that I didn't watch, but then can't support either. No, what I'm saying is that you have no alternate explanation. Things can be reasonably be determined to be true when that's the case. For instance, you can say "my co-worker is not a Russian spy" without making an assumption.

      "You've already admitted there were "very specific and time-dependent circumstances" so you can't say there was a "deadline"."

      The end of the second trimester is the deadline. Abortion is legal up to that point in time. You said that abortion was legal if a woman's life was in danger, which would be the exception after the deadline. What do you imagine you're talking about?

      "If that's true then I'll bet a majority of the abortions within the US would not fall within that category."

      How did that logically follow the quote you provided? What "category" are you referring to?

      "You haven't provided proof of anything to be contrary of, so far."

      Yes, I did, because she was over seven months pregnant. The only reasonable conclusion is that the expected to take the pregnancy to term. Your flailing about only cements the fact that you have no alternative theory.

      "Changing the parameters and assuming circumstances."

      How am I "changing the parameters", if you know what that even means? And obviously abortions typically involve unwanted pregnancies. As opposed to what?

      Delete
    32. "Now, I have to assume you're Chinese."

      No, America has seen a dramatic population increase, and the world itself is sufficiently populated as a whole. It's not as if we need to continue the population increase in order to function, so having more people has no benefit in and of itself.

      "Wow! I'll bet Hitler thought the same way as you."

      That doesn't surprise me, considering your warped mindset. Potential life isn't equivalent to actual people. Your religious views don't change that for anyone else.

      "And, hence, my question about how YOU know what Mrs. Peterson wanted to do with her body."

      You'll have to flesh out your point. She was past the cutoff point for legal abortion. So, if she were to get an illegal abortion, a jury would have been able to convict her for that. Now, try to mentally connect that concept to the "double murder" charge. Take all the time you need. Now, try to figure out how something that she would have been legally accountable for somehow proves that every fetus or embryo is a legally protected entity, when she could have gotten an abortion at an earlier point in time.

      If she had been killed at the two-month stage, and a jury had convicted him on those charges, you would almost have a point. Sadly for you, that's not the situation at hand.

      "About 99.9% of Americans are immunized. How could there possibly be a risk?"

      Are you sure about that percentage?

      "Except to those who have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to not have an immunization."

      So your argument is that the high percentage of people who are vaccinated justifies lowering the number itself? Hilarious. And as the number gets lower, the risk becomes higher, even by your own logic. Which would be increasing risk to others, making the argument as to why there is no "RIGHT to CHOOSE" any such thing.

      What about children who don't choose to not get vaccinated, because they can't do it? I suppose they can just die off, as far as you're concerned.

      Delete
    33. "Anyone who could possibly be murdered can legally get an abortion? That's interesting."

      Psychological well being of the woman. Hey, it's you people (liberals) who demanded unreasonable excuses to kill human life. Now, accept the possibilities of what you demanded.

      "That's amusing, coming from the person who tells me where I live and asserts that I responded to a video that I didn't watch, but then can't support either. "

      I give an OPINION and I provided the link to back up the later. What the hell do you want? You're the one making shit up and not backing up what you say, like how the police are racist since they killed a black man. Prove what the hell you say.

      "Yes, I did, "

      I was referring (proof of anything) to your insistence that the police are racist because they killed a black man. Try to follow along. You call them racist but have no proof or evidence to back it up when the government's judicial system found none yet you continue to say it's true AND the only possibility. Try harder next time or ... if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Because it's obvious that it is you who is flailing.

      " It's not as if we need to continue the population increase in order to function, so having more people has no benefit in and of itself."

      Wow! You must love it that there are millions dying in Africa, from hunger, then. Since the world is already too populated, those people can just die away and the world will be much better for it? Abortion by the millions ... starvation by the millions ... you accept those, but risk killing a couple thousand from chick pox and you go berserk and call it a danger to society. How does that pan out in your uninformed liberal mind?

      "That doesn't surprise me, considering your warped mindset."

      MY warped mindset?!? You're the one who accepts millions of deaths annually as a good population control effect, but get bent out of shape over a couple hundred deaths annually from chicken pox and call it a danger to society.

      "Your religious views don't change that for anyone else."

      I have not expressed any religious views (in this conversation) for you to even imply that. Pure medical science proves everything I say about unborn human life. I can guarantee there isn't a medical scientist on the planet that will say a woman who is pregnant may have a puppy instead of a human child. So it isn't "potential" life it IS life. YOUR religious views are also unacceptable, leave them out of this too. See how that works?

      "She was past the cutoff point for legal abortion."

      No, she wasn't. And you've already admitted there are situations that could allow abortions up to the very day of delivery. You lose on this point. Don't continue to make yourself look foolish.

      "Now, try to mentally connect that concept to the "double murder" charge."

      Ok, let's look at it from a liberal's point of view ... she was pregnant with "potential life" but it wasn't "alive" or "a citizen" quite yet, so there is only ONE death of a citizen and/or human being. Explain how the double murder charge came about again. This time try to use your definition of human life as a guideline for your explanation of how he took 2 lives.

      Delete
    34. "Are you sure about that percentage?"

      I'm sure of the word "about". However, if you have evidence of something different you're more than welcome to bring it. Aha ha .. as if that will ever happen.

      "So your argument is that the high percentage of people who are vaccinated justifies lowering the number itself?"

      No, but your justification for abortion is there are too many people on the planet already and no more are really needed. You're right ... that IS hilarious.

      "What about children who don't choose to not get vaccinated, because they can't do it?"

      When they reach legal age, they can make their own decision. Until then the parent(s) make the decision for them as to what is best for them. You still haven't commented on the family I referenced where their DOCTOR ordered them NOT to be immunized because of health concerns within the family. As in abortion, don't you allow for exceptions? If so, how does that fit into your danger to society whine?

      "I suppose they can just die off, as far as you're concerned."

      That's not how I feel, but if I did ... I could always use your reasoning that the planet already has too many people and losing some won't hurt anyone, only help the planet.
      You haven't thought this through at all, have you? If you have, you're a complete idiot. If you haven't you're a complete moron. Now there's a win/win situation. Either answer improves your mental capability.

      Delete
    35. "Psychological well being of the woman. Hey, it's you people (liberals) who demanded unreasonable excuses to kill human life."

      How does that logically follow? And I didn't say anything about "psychological well being", so you're obviously generalizing again. That just doesn't seem right.

      "I give an OPINION and I provided the link to back up the later."

      You don't have an "OPINION" about things that you have absolutely no way of drawing a conclusion about. As if "my opinion is that you download child porn, so I can state that as if it's fact". It doesn't work that way. As to your link, I provided it to you. What you would need to do is to provide a quote that supports your claim, and you can't do that.

      "You're the one making shit up and not backing up what you say, like how the police are racist since they killed a black man."

      No, I never said "the police are racist since they killed a black man", or anything like it. That's your misrepresentation, since you can't address what I've actually said.

      "I was referring (proof of anything) to your insistence that the police are racist because they killed a black man. Try to follow along."

      Me: "How would she not be planning on carrying the pregnancy to term at that stage?" What's your theory, that she was planning on getting an illegal abortion?"
      You: "You say it as if you knew her personally and what she was thinking. Did you know her? If not, well you're going to have a difficult time proving something you just ASSUME is true. That means you're going to demand that I prove otherwise.
      Me: "No, I've simply asked you to provide some reason to believe something to the contrary. You can't even do that."
      You: "You haven't provided proof of anything to be contrary of, so far."
      Me: "Yes, I did, because she was over seven months pregnant."

      You are wrong. You were talking about Laci Peterson. Try to follow your own comments.

      "You call them racist but have no proof or evidence to back it up when the government's judicial system found none yet you continue to say it's true AND the only possibility."

      When the problem is systemic racism, then the judicial system doesn't prove that there's no racism. Your argument is circular. I also didn't say it's the "only possibility", it's the reasonable conclusion. Until you show what other possibility is reasonably determined to be likely, then it appears to be the only possibility.

      "You must love it that there are millions dying in Africa, from hunger, then."

      No, those would be people, not just potential life.

      Delete
    36. "You're the one who accepts millions of deaths annually as a good population control effect, but get bent out of shape over a couple hundred deaths annually from chicken pox and call it a danger to society."

      Abortions aren't "deaths", the same way that there aren't criminal investigations for miscarriages.

      "Pure medical science proves everything I say about unborn human life."

      Medical science doesn't determine that a fetus is legally protected.

      "I can guarantee there isn't a medical scientist on the planet that will say a woman who is pregnant may have a puppy instead of a human child."

      You've spouted this garbage before. "Human" isn't the issue. By that logic, masturbation should be illegal for men because that involves "human" reproductive material.

      "So it isn't "potential" life it IS life."

      You just switched from arguing "human" to trying to define "life" as if they're the same thing.

      "YOUR religious views are also unacceptable, leave them out of this too."

      I don't have any religious views.

      "No, she wasn't."

      Prove it.

      "And you've already admitted there are situations that could allow abortions up to the very day of delivery."

      There are situations where I can shoot and kill someone, such as if my life is in danger. That doesn't make shooting people legal in general. It's an exception. Having an exception doesn't eliminate the concept of a cutoff point for abortions in general.

      "Ok, let's look at it from a liberal's point of view ... she was pregnant with "potential life" but it wasn't "alive" or "a citizen" quite yet, so there is only ONE death of a citizen and/or human being."

      No, because she was past the cutoff point. I already said that I personally think the cutoff point could be after the first trimester, so you can't pretend that you're arguing against unrestricted abortion. I also said that I don't have a problem with the verdict, as far as justice is concerned.

      Delete
    37. "This time try to use your definition of human life as a guideline for your explanation of how he took 2 lives."

      She was past the cutoff point for legal abortion, so the fetus was legally protected. If it had occurred a few months earlier, then the charge would not have had merit.

      "However, if you have evidence of something different you're more than welcome to bring it."

      Or, you could substantiate your claims of fact. As if that would ever happen. Do you actually know what percentage of people are vaccinated? Do you know why such a high percentage is required for herd immunity?

      "No, but your justification for abortion is there are too many people on the planet already and no more are really needed."

      I didn't say "no more are really needed", but growth can be slowed down. To get back on track, how are you not arguing that the high number justifies a lower number? If people aren't vaccinated, then the percentage will go down. That's basic math.

      "When they reach legal age, they can make their own decision."

      So only eighteen years of being put at risk of death?

      "Until then the parent(s) make the decision for them as to what is best for them."

      Again, I didn't ask about choice. I'm talking about children who can not get vaccinated for medical reasons. What you're saying is that the parents of one child have an influence over the health of another family's child.

      "You still haven't commented on the family I referenced where their DOCTOR ordered them NOT to be immunized because of health concerns within the family."

      That's my exact point; by your argument, other children would put that child at risk. That is not justifiable.

      "That's not how I feel, but if I did ... I could always use your reasoning that the planet already has too many people and losing some won't hurt anyone, only help the planet."

      That's not consistent with my reasoning, because I distinguish between people and pregnancies. I'm sure I'll have to remind you of that a dozen or so more times, since you're perpetually incapable of grasping that concept.

      And, if you do care about public health, then you can't argue for any "choice" regarding vaccination. Exceptions for medical reasons don't even factor into that.

      Delete
    38. " I also didn't say it's the "only possibility", it's the reasonable conclusion. Until you show what other possibility is reasonably determined to be likely, then it appears to be the only possibility."

      Aren't you in the middle of chastising me for doing that with where you live? New Jersey is a "reasonable" conclusion and until you bring another "reasonable" possibility that would be more likely,.then New Jersey it is. See how that works?

      "You are wrong. You were talking about Laci Peterson."

      Did you notice I said "so far"? That means in the entire conversation that is currently going on.

      "Abortions aren't "deaths", the same way that there aren't criminal investigations for miscarriages."

      Well, Scot Peterson sure got shafted when he killed a woman and a "potential life", huh?

      "Medical science doesn't determine that a fetus is legally protected."

      Medical science has proven that baby is a viable human being before they are actually removed from the womb. Hence the famed D&X procedure ... pull the baby half way out and scramble it's brains then finish delivering the murdered baby. Gotta love you abortion-on-demand people. (note the sarcasm)

      "You just switched from arguing "human" to trying to define "life" as if they're the same thing."

      You just replied to the "puppy" statement, Are you having THAT much trouble following along?

      "She was past the cutoff point for legal abortion, so the fetus was legally protected."

      You mean the baby.

      "Do you actually know what percentage of people are vaccinated?"

      A little over 80% worldwide. I'm sure a lot more in the US. That is why I said "about 99.9%". Reading comp 101

      "That's not consistent with my reasoning, because I distinguish between people and pregnancies."

      You leave a 3 month 'grey' area among your black and white thinking. Until you explain that, you are NOT consistent with your reasoning.

      Delete
    39. "New Jersey is a "reasonable" conclusion and until you bring another "reasonable" possibility that would be more likely,.then New Jersey it is."

      No, because you never explained your reasoning. You never established how it is "likely" at all. There are plenty of alternative locations which are equally possible, while you haven't even tried to explain what other cause there would be for the injustices in question.

      "Did you notice I said "so far"?"

      You said that you were referring to one thing when the history of dialogue shows that you were talking about something else. The phrase "so far" doesn't change that.

      "Well, Scot Peterson sure got shafted when he killed a woman and a "potential life", huh?"

      No, because she was past the cutoff point for legal abortion. The fetus was legally protected.

      "Medical science has proven that baby is a viable human being before they are actually removed from the womb."

      Non sequitur. Your emotional appeal doesn't address my point. Besides that, are you now restricting your argument against abortion to pregnancies over twenty-one weeks? You have no problem with abortions at, say, the one-month stage?

      "You just replied to the "puppy" statement, Are you having THAT much trouble following along?"

      You were using "puppy" to contrast to human, not life. Hence, your conclusion about life was inconsistent with your line of reasoning, if it can ever be called that.

      "You mean the baby."

      No, babies are born. If you want to pretend to respect science, try speaking the language. I'm not obligated to buy into your emotional appeals.

      "A little over 80% worldwide. I'm sure a lot more in the US."

      In other words, you don't know, yet you want to assert that there's no problem with lowering the rate of vaccination.

      "You leave a 3 month 'grey' area among your black and white thinking."

      You haven't demonstrated any "black and white thinking" on my part, and you haven't explained what your complaint is about any three-month period. Maybe you should put words down that I can address, instead of expecting me to respond to the angry little voices in your head. In the meantime, your unasked questions not being answered doesn't affect the nature of my reasoning.

      Delete
    40. "No, because you never explained your reasoning."

      You obviously don't live on the west coast because of your posting habits show time stamps and when compared to mine it is obvious you live on the east coast. You act like someone from New Jersey (I know quite a few people from there), so I have logical reasons to say you live there. Now, what's your counter information to prove me wrong?

      "while you haven't even tried to explain what other cause there would be for the injustices in question."

      Sure I have: bad information. What is so difficult about you understanding simple English? I've said that several times.

      "No, because she was past the cutoff point for legal abortion."

      Not true. I've established that there is at least one reason for legal abortions after your time frame. And suggested there are more. You have not brought any evidence to show there are NO exceptions to the abortions laws that cover the time frame you are concerned about.

      "Besides that, are you now restricting your argument against abortion to pregnancies over twenty-one weeks?"

      I don't believe I've ever said that 21 weeks is any limit, in this discussion.

      "You were using "puppy" to contrast to human, not life."

      Are you saying that if a human was pregnant with a puppy it would be considered a life before birth? I think you're very confused right now. That seems to happen a lot when liberals get beaten down so badly on all their arguments.

      " I'm not obligated to buy into your emotional appeals."

      Then don't. I'm not obligated to buy into yours either.

      "In other words, you don't know, yet you want to assert that there's no problem with lowering the rate of vaccination."

      No, I don't know. And I said so when I made the statement. What is your problem with that? Do you know? Bring the information for all to enjoy.

      "You haven't demonstrated any "black and white thinking" on my part,"

      Yes I have. You think it is either life or not life directly related to the moment of birth.
      Of course during the famed D&X procedures it is a half-life as they pull the baby part way out of the womb before scrambling it's brains. So, explain your grey area. Why is it illegal under all circumstance to get an abortion after the time frame you have such a concern over?

      Delete
    41. "You act like someone from New Jersey (I know quite a few people from there), so I have logical reasons to say you live there."

      Even if I was from New Jersey, and I'm not, that doesn't mean that I currently live there. Besides that, there's no pattern of behavior restricted to one state. It's not as if you detected an accent in my voice. Are there supposedly specific words that you thought you picked out that indicated New Jersey? Otherwise, you simply asserting that I "act" like someone from New Jersey means nothing at all. You act like someone who was in prison for half of his life. Prove me wrong.

      "Sure I have: bad information."

      You've been asked multiple times to point out where your link even suggests "bad information", and how that would even help your case if it did. You haven't followed through, so your explanation is null and void.

      "I've established that there is at least one reason for legal abortions after your time frame."

      Exceptions don't erase the rule. Again, being able to kill someone in self-defense doesn't make killing people legal in general. Wrap your mind around the concept.

      "You have not brought any evidence to show there are NO exceptions to the abortions laws that cover the time frame you are concerned about."

      You would have to prove, first, that "NO exceptions" is part of defining something as "legal". You can't do that.

      "I don't believe I've ever said that 21 weeks is any limit, in this discussion."

      You: "Since you raised the issue of late term abortion ... did you know that 1.4% of abortions in 2003 were after the 21st week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy). Let's see, in one year approx 14000 viable human beings were killed."
      If you're going to use "medical science" as your basis to oppose abortion, then what's your argument against early abortion?

      "Are you saying that if a human was pregnant with a puppy it would be considered a life before birth?"

      I'm not the one obsessed with people being pregnant with puppies in this conversation. That's entirely you. What I said was that you tried to define "life" after making the supposedly brilliant point that women are pregnant with human fetuses not puppies. And "human" doesn't define "life". You made a leap in logic.

      Delete
    42. "Then don't."

      Then don't tell me that I mean "baby" instead of fetus.

      "I'm not obligated to buy into yours either."

      I haven't made any emotional appeals.

      "No, I don't know. And I said so when I made the statement."

      Then why don't you look up the statistics, so that you can come up with an informed decision on the subject?

      "You think it is either life or not life directly related to the moment of birth."

      Your definition of "life" is irrelevant, because that's not the determining factor behind a cutoff point. You're the one fixated on that, not me. What I'm talking about is legal protection.

      "So, explain your grey area. Why is it illegal under all circumstance to get an abortion after the time frame you have such a concern over?"

      There is no "grey area". There has to be a cutoff point, and you can't explain what's unreasonable about that. What would you prefer, that people who support abortion would allow women to have them legally at the eight-month stage? You're the one advocating black and white thinking, because then it would have to be either completely illegal or completely legal. A more moderate view would be that it can be legal up until a certain point in time, and then performed by exception after that point. I've already said, twice on this thread alone, that I think that point should be after the first trimester.

      So, it would seem that you're whining about a moderate viewpoint, and demanding instead that liberals support a complete lack of legal intervention. Apparently, you'll bitch and moan about a supposed lack of consistency until that happens, and I can only imagine you'd be screaming in the streets about "murdering liberals" if that lack of regulation ever occurred. You should probably try to accept the more moderate position instead of demanding something else, don't you think?

      Delete
    43. "Prove me wrong."

      I don't need to. I've proven myself to be right. There are nothing to counter what I've said so I will stand by it.

      "You haven't followed through, so your explanation is null and void."

      I don't need to follow through. I provided the link that has the information. It isn't my responsibility to hold your hand and take you to the location of each case. The facts are the cases are there, you simply need to look for them. Seek and ye shall find.

      "Exceptions don't erase the rule."

      No, they don't. But, they do make it so you can't say she was past the point of "legal abortion", because you have admitted (a couple times) that it IS legal to get one at the time frame she was at.

      "If you're going to use "medical science" as your basis to oppose abortion, then what's your argument against early abortion?"

      That's not the topic, here.

      "You made a leap in logic."

      Yes, a logical one: a being growing would be considered alive (life).

      "Then don't tell me that I mean "baby" instead of fetus."

      Why not? That's what you meant.

      "What I'm talking about is legal protection."

      Sure, you keep demanding that there IS a cut-off point (legally), when I continue to show (and you agree) that there are exceptions that prove there is NO legal cut-off point. So what logical reason would you have to continue to claim there is a cut-off point when you've admitted there is no cut-off point?

      "What would you prefer, that people who support abortion would allow women to have them legally at the eight-month stage?"

      With the exceptions that is already allowed. So why do you keep claiming there is a cut-off point when there isn't? That isn't logical ... oh wait, never mind (note the sarcasm)

      Delete
    44. "There are nothing to counter what I've said so I will stand by it."

      That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your assertion that anyone "acts" like they're from a certain state is meaningless.

      "I don't need to follow through."

      Oh, but you know that you do, because you asked me to explain my link which refuted you. If you thought I needed to explain it, then you know that you need to follow through on your link, instead of simply insisting that it says something.

      "But, they do make it so you can't say she was past the point of "legal abortion", because you have admitted (a couple times) that it IS legal to get one at the time frame she was at."

      No, because she wasn't in the specific circumstances that would justify an abortion at that point.

      "That's not the topic, here."

      So you support abortion before 21 weeks. That's good to know.

      "Yes, a logical one: a being growing would be considered alive (life)."

      A puppy would also be alive. That didn't work for you at all.

      "Why not? That's what you meant."

      No, it isn't.

      "Sure, you keep demanding that there IS a cut-off point (legally), when I continue to show (and you agree) that there are exceptions that prove there is NO legal cut-off point."

      The exceptions don't erase the cut-off point. In fact, the cut-off point is what determines the need for any exceptions. Check and mate.

      "With the exceptions that is already allowed."

      I'm talking about unrestricted abortion, so there wouldn't be any need for "exceptions". It would be legal without regard for circumstances. Try reading that again and answering the actual question posed to you.

      Delete
    45. "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "

      That means I can dismiss everything you say because you bring no evidence. While I bring evidence for what I say. Wow, I'm truly shocked you would come out with such a revelation.

      "If you thought I needed to explain it, then you know that you need to follow through on your link, instead of simply insisting that it says something."

      I have done that. Now, it's your turn. Oh, wait: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your link can simply be dismissed.

      "No, because she wasn't in the specific circumstances that would justify an abortion at that point."

      It seems pretty clear with the evidence we have that she could have been fearful for her life. That would cause great psychological stress and possibly harm to the woman. Which, of course, would fit within the parameters that the good liberal achieved when they got abortion legalized. Actions have results, I truly don't care whether you like the results.

      "No, it isn't."

      Sure it is, prove me wrong or: That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

      "The exceptions don't erase the cut-off point."

      If there was a cut-off point then the exception could not apply. Obviously, you're from New Jersey, they can't play chess very well there either. Usually when you lose your pieces it's a bad thing, but for some reason when you lose you think you've won. Yep, you're from Jersey, ain't no doubt about it now.

      Delete
    46. "That means I can dismiss everything you say because you bring no evidence."

      Your definition of "no evidence" involves proving that a woman who's seven and a half months pregnant wasn't planning on getting an abortion at that point. You have no credibility.

      "I have done that."

      You haven't cited anything.

      "It seems pretty clear with the evidence we have that she could have been fearful for her life."

      So, getting an abortion would have saved her life? No, it's not very likely that anyone would believe that, especially her.

      "Which, of course, would fit within the parameters that the good liberal achieved when they got abortion legalized."

      What does that have to do with abortion in the third trimester, which is illegal?

      "Sure it is, prove me wrong or: That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

      It's your assertion, so the burden of proof is yours. Since you have no evidence, I'm the one who gets to dismiss your claim.

      "If there was a cut-off point then the exception could not apply."

      How do you figure that? If there was no cut-off point, then there would be no need for any exception, because it would be legal no matter what.

      "Usually when you lose your pieces it's a bad thing, but for some reason when you lose you think you've won."

      Actually, losing pieces isn't a negative if it improves the position. Besides that, pieces have different values, so trading a rook for, say, three pawns would be questionable (rook=5, pawn=1). Apparently, I've proven that I'm not from New Jersey, because I know more about chess than you do.

      Delete
    47. "Your definition of "no evidence" involves proving that a woman who's seven and a half months pregnant wasn't planning on getting an abortion at that point."

      I'm not a mind reader (like you are) so I can't say what she was planning (like you have said). Of course you brought no evidence of her intentions on keeping the "term to pregnancy".

      "So, getting an abortion would have saved her life?"

      She was murdered. It would only stand to reason that she was fearful of this guy in some way. I'm saying that if she wasn't murdered perhaps there could be a scenario where she would not have wanted to keep the offspring of a person of his character and could have been fearful for her life and that could cause great psychological stress and harm to the mother's health. Which would fall within the legal parameters for getting an abortion during the time frame you have concerns with.

      "If there was no cut-off point, then there would be no need for any exception, because it would be legal no matter what."

      Thank you for admitting that I'm right and you're wrong. Since there are exceptions there is no cut-off point. Do you have any evidence of the D&X procedure occurring that falls within the legal laws you are citing (but not bringing evidence of)?

      "Apparently, I've proven that I'm not from New Jersey, because I know more about chess than you do."

      Actually, you've proven you know less about chess than I do. I don't call check mate after losing a piece (or several). So, I will accept that as an acknowledgement that you're from Jersey.

      Delete
    48. "I'm not a mind reader (like you are) so I can't say what she was planning (like you have said)."

      It's reasonable to say that she didn't want to have her life in danger so that she could get an abortion, when she could have legally gotten one two months previously. And if you aren't a mind reader, then you shouldn't be telling me what words I mean to use.

      "I'm saying that if she wasn't murdered perhaps there could be a scenario where she would not have wanted to keep the offspring of a person of his character and could have been fearful for her life and that could cause great psychological stress and harm to the mother's health."

      That's not only based off of assumptions, but it also involves mind-reading.

      "Which would fall within the legal parameters for getting an abortion during the time frame you have concerns with."

      So when you're asking me how I know what her "will" was, you're introducing a hypothetical scenario involving what would happen if she wasn't killed. That doesn't address the reality of the situation, obviously. It's also not clear how that would qualify as a reason for an abortion.

      "Since there are exceptions there is no cut-off point."

      You keep saying that, but it still doesn't make any sense. The term "cut-off point" doesn't rely on there being no exceptions, while "exceptions" does rely on it being otherwise illegal.

      "Do you have any evidence of the D&X procedure occurring that falls within the legal laws you are citing (but not bringing evidence of)?"

      I haven't said anything about that procedure, but it's supposed to be done for medically-necessary abortions, such as when the life of the mother is at risk. That would be an exception, where someone who otherwise would not be able to legally get an abortion would then be able to.

      "I don't call check mate after losing a piece (or several)."

      Neither do I. When you point out the existence of exceptions, that proves that everyone who doesn't qualify for that exception is prevented from getting an abortion. Hence, it's illegal after the cutoff point. You have nowhere to go from there.

      Let's test your premise: if you see a "no parking" sign which notes "except on Sunday", and it's Sunday, can you legally park there? If you said "yes", can you legally park there on Monday? You might get the learn the actual meaning of a phrase that you probably use incorrectly.

      Delete
    49. "It's reasonable to say that she didn't want to have her life in danger so that she could get an abortion, when she could have legally gotten one two months previously."

      It's also reasonable to say that he wasn't a murderer until AFTER she became pregnant. Apparently, feelings and emotions and psychological profiles change over time.

      "That's not only based off of assumptions, but it also involves mind-reading."

      That's right, and you're the only one (in this conversation) dong that.

      " That would be an exception, where someone who otherwise would not be able to legally get an abortion would then be able to."

      Do you mean that exception would allow that person to be able to get one "legally"?

      "Let's test your premise:"

      Parking on Sunday would indicate there is no cut-off date. Since Sundays happen every week. So, yes there would be no cut-off date and it would be legal to take advantage of an exception.

      Delete
    50. "It's also reasonable to say that he wasn't a murderer until AFTER she became pregnant."

      Non sequitur. If you don't think that she wanted to be in danger so that she could then get an abortion, then you admit that her will was to carry the pregnancy to term.

      "That's right, and you're the only one (in this conversation) dong that."

      Apparently not, since I was referring to your comment.

      "Do you mean that exception would allow that person to be able to get one "legally"?"

      That's what I said: "someone who otherwise would not be able to legally get an abortion would then be able to."

      "Parking on Sunday would indicate there is no cut-off date."

      Who said "date"? At midnight, you would no longer be legally able to park there.

      "So, yes there would be no cut-off date and it would be legal to take advantage of an exception."

      It's an "exception" because it's illegal to park there during the rest of the week. Yes or no?

      Delete
    51. "Apparently not, since I was referring to your comment."

      The difference is that I used a hypothetical while you made a statement of fact based on YOUR assumptions of her mental condition. And then refused to back up what you said.

      "That's what I said: "someone who otherwise would not be able to legally get an abortion would then be able to.""

      Good, then you admit there's no cut-off time. Since anyone (someone) could get one legally by taking advantage of the exception(s).

      Delete
    52. "The difference is that I used a hypothetical while you made a statement of fact based on YOUR assumptions of her mental condition."

      Your hypothetical doesn't replace reality. You wanted to talk about her actual intent, not what her intent might be under some convoluted set of possible circumstances. Also, you still need to figure out the difference between an assumption and a reasoned conclusion.

      "Since anyone (someone) could get one legally by taking advantage of the exception(s)."

      The cut-off point is what makes the exception a possibility. If abortions were always legal, then there would be no need to have an exception.

      You can't address that, obviously, since you can't even answer a straightforward question about what "exception" means. How pathetic.

      Delete
    53. "Your hypothetical doesn't replace reality."

      I know, that's why it's called hypothetical.

      "You can't address that, obviously, since you can't even answer a straightforward question about what "exception" means."

      I don't remember seeing one of those, yet. I could be wrong, why don't you bring the link to that question and I'll answer it.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    54. "I know, that's why it's called hypothetical."

      Which would be fine, if you hadn't already been talking about what the will of the mother actually was.

      "I don't remember seeing one of those, yet. I could be wrong, why don't you bring the link to that question and I'll answer it."

      You don't need a link for a question from a few comments ago.
      Me: "It's an "exception" because it's illegal to park there during the rest of the week. Yes or no?"

      Delete
    55. "You don't need a link for a question from a few comments ago."

      Where's the part where you asked me the meaning of exception in a straightforward way? Provide that or you're lying. At the least very dishonest and misleading.

      Delete
    56. "Where's the part where you asked me the meaning of exception in a straightforward way? Provide that or you're lying."

      Again: "It's an "exception" because it's illegal to park there during the rest of the week. Yes or no?"
      Are you really going to whine because you don't like how that question is worded, or something? It's perfectly clear as it is. You're dodging questions, yet you want to criticize me for "lying" because you have a differing opinion on what constitutes "straightforward"? I'd love to see you try to pursue that.

      Delete
    57. Umm, you are lying. I asked for the question that you asked for the meaning of exception in, and the best you can do is that? You're not even trying anymore.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    58. "Umm, you are lying. I asked for the question that you asked for the meaning of exception in, and the best you can do is that?"

      No, I'm not lying. The question posed to you three times now is about the meaning of "exception". You can't honestly say how you could possibly believe otherwise. And you can't answer the question, because doing so inescapably proves my point.

      Run along, now.

      Delete
    59. "Yes or no?" is your question. Otherwise you simply have a statement. You are lying.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    60. ""Yes or no?" is your question. Otherwise you simply have a statement. You are lying."

      And it's a straightforward question about your view of the meaning of "exception". How much more clear can a question be? This may be the weakest attempt at accusing me of "lying" that you've ever made, and that's a tremendous accomplishment.

      By all means, keep crying for no justifiable reason whatsoever. All you're doing is proving that your habitual accusations of "lying" have no merit.

      Delete
    61. You mean my habitual accusations of you lying are 100% accurate because you did not ask the meaning of exception in any way, shape or form. Get a grip on reality before you post again.

      Delete
    62. "You mean my habitual accusations of you lying are 100% accurate because you did not ask the meaning of exception in any way, shape or form."

      Really, in "any way, shape or form"? What did you think "yes or no" applied to? Also note the phrase "since you can't even answer a straightforward question about what "exception" means". The word "about" doesn't imply that I asked you "what does 'exception' mean?", so quit pretending that I claimed to ask that exact question or whatever.

      I asked you a straightforward question about the meaning of "exception", because "yes or no" applied to the statement describing an exception. Do you want to keep trying at this one? If so, you'd better come up with an explanation for yourself.

      Delete
    63. "I asked you a straightforward question about the meaning of "exception", because "yes or no" applied to the statement describing an exception."

      You said "THE meaning", that means you think there is only one possible meaning of that word. I don't agree, so I'm not required to answer for inaccurate statements made by you. Ask your question correctly.
      And ... "straightforward"? Really, you've got to look up what that word means before you try using it dishonestly.

      Delete
    64. "You said "THE meaning", that means you think there is only one possible meaning of that word. I don't agree, so I'm not required to answer for inaccurate statements made by you."

      No, that's actually not what that phrase means. "The meaning" would include any relevant applications of the definition. Besides, this wasn't your previous story. You said that the question wasn't straightforward, then you said that "yes or no" was the question and the statement it applied to was separate, now you're claiming that you're balking because you don't want to be restricted to "one possible meaning". Further, it doesn't make sense to refuse to answer a question based on something that I said after asking the question.

      It's also notable that you've gone from claiming that I didn't ask about the meaning of the word "in any way, shape or form" to whining about the way that I asked. So, you just admitted to being a liar.

      Anyway, let's try this a fourth time: "It's an "exception" because it's illegal to park there during the rest of the week. Yes or no?"
      There's nothing complicated about that question, so quit your whining and your tap-dancing. Is that what makes it an "exception", yes or no?

      Delete
    65. Refusing to adhere to your absurd demands doesn't make me lazy. You failing to support your claim of fact does make you lazy.

      ROTFLMAO

      Delete
    66. "Refusing to adhere to your absurd demands doesn't make me lazy. You failing to support your claim of fact does make you lazy."

      You're too lazy to even explain how that's supposed to work against me.

      You can't answer the question. Your argument fails. Run along, now.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shit. BTW...? "Four Friends" is *ME*, "Niceguy Eddie." I didn't realize I was signed in on my baseball account. Sorry about any confusion that caused.

    ReplyDelete