I mean I know 3 year olds who are better at lying than the Democrat Party, we've seen this same BS for years.

The problem is that you asked that of people notorious for NOT doing any independent thinking. They are incapable of looking past the propaganda pushed by CNN and MSNBC to discover what really happened.

Yes. I literally had someone tell me they’d trust the media rather than trump b/c he was a serial liar. Like the media isn’t. But CNN & MSNBC is completely trustworthy. I can do whatever i want in my day b/c at 6 PM or whenever they come on, they dump absolute truth about politics. Democrats are the heroes and Republicans are the villains.

I agree. What do you want to bet that mysteriously the Mainstream Media now flip-flops from giving Trump 97% negative coverage no matter what to giving President Biden 97% positive coverage no matter what?

Wait did biden already win?
Well, they defended everything Obama did. If Trump had brought the Ebola patients in America, they’d have found a way to end his presidency. They’re just not fair to the parties. So yeah i think if Biden becomes the president, they’ll defend him no matter what he does. If he does something dumb, they’ll make up reasons to defend it. And they sure won’t make fun of him when he misspells something on the internet or says something and forgets it 30 seconds later. Or if he forgets where he is and what he’s talking about during a speech. Or if he forgets he’s the president.
We call Fox News the Republican media. When are we going to call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, The New York Times, the LA times, Politico, Fact Checks, The Atlantic, & etc. the Democrat media?

Well said.

Thx lol
I cant stand politics b/c I’m not argumentative, but i do find out info about it. This election, however, i think is a point that will change things & so i cant back out of discussion about it. But i rlly don’t like it.

How trustworthy is your news source? There's a real good chart on media bias produced by Ad Fontes Media, Inc. Here's an easy to read version of media bias I found at https://my.lwv.org/sites/default/files/styles/panopoly_image_original/public/leagues/wysiwyg/%5Bcurrent-user%3Aog-user-node%3A1%3Atitle%5D/media-bias-chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min-1200x927.jpg?itok=U57vHTRc (League of Women Voters)

Where does your news sources land on this chart? Me? I look for the source so as far as where I look, it as far as left or right, I try to stay win the -6 to 6 column and above the 48 row.

How accurate is it? Where does your news sources stand on this chart?

That chart shows CNN bordering neutral as skews left. But we all know they are closer to hyper-partisan left. So, how trustworthy is the source of this chart?

That's why I pointed out where I go for the source of a story. You'll notice that I said my sources were between -6 and 6. Keep it above the 48 line, and you'll have the best facts available to you. If you keep above the 56 line in that same area, you have the most factual news. If you need some analysis on the story, again, try to stay within the green box. On the few occasions that I go outside that box, I rarely come across anything really useful.

I will point out that Ad Fontes has a more recent chart: This one is a couple years old. You may want to check the current on their site. I posted this one knowing that, because it was easier to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Fontes_Media. Nothing in there that says they're affiliated with CNN. Personally, I'd think if CNN were behind this, they'd choose a higher placement on the chart.

That's why one has to determine where their news sources set their standards on bias. CNN falls well below my standard for journalism. I prefer AP, Reuters, and UPI as news sources.

It says that mine skew extreme right. Of course in my youth they would have been labelled mainstream. What it really means is that -- by the recent admission of a former CBS president -- today's mainstream media skew so far Left that they have dragged the meaning of mainstream far leftward with them. (Shrug) But I'm fine with all of that sort of labelling. I'm now too old to sweat nuances.

I'll assume that you're talking Fox "News". It ends up there because of the mixture or reporting quality. It falls within the orange box, "Extreme/unfair interpretations of the news" but it also intersects two other lines.The yellow line, "Fair interpretations of the news" and the red line, "nonsense damaging to public discourse." This is why a good news analyst all but ignores Fox news stories. As far as investigative journalism, they have none. They're basically on par with The Daily Kos. News to be taken with a grain of salt. They're nothing more than an news aggregator, that takes a story off of the wire (or a press release) and then puts their own political spin on it. You remember this meme: https://bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/pepsi.jpg. I actually recall it having other choices, but pretty much showing a fact, Obama drinking a Pepsi, and interpretations of the picture.

Fox News has a lot of time to go over the day's news, but to really get respect from the journalistic world, they would need to do an investigative journalism story like the MSM did before the fairness doctrine was removed. But for now, the entire network is basically a bunch of talking heads. But that can be said about a lot of things.

Ooooh, democrats neeeeever lie. It's just a cluster of cells, forget your chromosomes, you can be whatever sex you want to be with glued on parts, the earth would never get warmer in a natural cycle, it's mankind's fault, the check's in the mail and I won't come in.........

Ikr?

“How long is an embryo and embryo?"
Between the second and eighth week after fertilization
“Embryos aren't babies. They aren't fully developed humans.”

So, after eight weeks, you consider it a baby, not an embryo anymore?

So animal babies are babies but human babies aren’t?

You said the baby is a fetus after eight weeks and not a baby. No one argues whether an animal baby is a baby or not.

You can try to make yourself feel better about it via semantics. But it doesn’t change the fact that abortion, especially late term, is killing an unborn child.

So, killing 10% of unborn children is acceptable?

Late term abortions happen because there is a medical issue that is a risk to either the fetus or the pregnant person, they are not elective.

Or if a doctor decides the unborn child isn’t viable.

FYI, 100% are unborn children.

So human material from two breeding age humans combines and becomes a single cell of human material- unless it's the missing link and becomes a monkey, it is destined to become only a human being as long as it's development is not prevented. At 18 days it has a fully functioning, independent human heart, with real human blood, it develops hands with fingers, feet with toes, internal organs, a spine, and skeletal structure by around 8 weeks, with facial features, and it is not a baby. There is nothing so blind as one who refuses to see. Sorry Oct, your wrong- it's a human being from the moment of conception, nothing else, until it's last heartbeat.

You know we will never agree on this. Let me concede, humans never exist. We are mere images of nothingness. Life has no value, life in all it's forms is meaningless. The only meaning in life is that life is nothing. Life never begins, it only ends.

Just an observation, a woman who wants the child calls it a baby not a fetus, the woman who is pissed off her life has been impacted by her negligent behavior calls it a fetus. Nice little Naziesque treatment there, much easier to murder what is dehumanized. Who knows, maybe someday science will figure out how women get pregnant and they'll create ways to prevent it. You know, science is the answer to every problem. Oh wait, that might require personal responsibility, can't have that shit running loose in the neighborhood.

Contraception that sometimes fails? Something like it fails over a million times a year for women who want to screw without consequences. How many times does it fail for women who don't chose death? I'd say the science of contraception isn't very good then. Oh but we have to trust science, science is god!

Wdym?
“It’s just a cluster of cells“ is exactly what you hear. No one talks about DNA, chromosomes, or anything else.
“You can be whatever sex you want to be with glued on parts.“ That’s exactly what transgender operations are.
And global warming is something it seems like ppl r paid 2 say is happening. I watch the weather (I’ve had an interest in it from a young age) & while some years this decade have been historically hot (namely 2012, 2015, & 2016), it’s not like the average temps are increasing. If you compare 2010 to 2020, it’s not too different. However, I’ve noticed ppl keep cooling the past & warming the present when trying 2 prove global warming, which Ik better than b/c i was literally watching during the time of the beginning of their charts. I do know there are studies about the Persian gulf possibly reaching 170 degrees by 2100, but that’s due to pollution problems, not weather patterns (which the studies say).

Baby animals are considered baby animals, while humans are considered blobs of tissue, non-living embryos, or a mass of cells. Ppl say “abort a fetus” instead of “kill a baby” to ease conscience.

1) She wrote a book launching a “Negro Project,” mentioned speaking to a KKK member in her autobiography (meaning this was something she was proud of) (hmmm... I wonder how the left would view trump or any of the founding fathers if they did this...) and advocated for breeding for the “gradual suppression, elimination, and eventual EXTINCTION of defective stocks - those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

2) The reason PPs are in excessively black neighborhoods often is to get black people to kill themselves off. Literally, in 1939, Sanger wrote a letter to Dr. CJ Gamble, which contains this: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Do I need to say more?
Plus Lyndon B Johnson literally once said on tape: “We’ll have those n****as voting Democrat for two centuries.” If a rightist said anything like this, all blacks would know about it. It’s counting blacks as “other.” (Which apparently offends the left.)

I didn’t answer? The second passage literally has a quote of her writing “We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

That’s what she said to Gamble. This information is easily available. I found some of what I am saying on a news article that tends to be leftist-biased.

That’s the point. Black people don’t know what she stood for. Do you think racism depends on who people support? Is the reason Trump is not a racist that many blacks support him? And also I don’t think people immediately knew this.

CJ Gamble was someone helping her with furthering abortion. The fact that she wrote that to him meant that.

Wow. That is full of many assumptions. You know Elizabeth Stanton supported women being able to vote. She died before it was legal. That doesn’t mean she didn’t support it.

Also, people forced abortions secretly before it was legal. Judy Garland was forced to have secret abortions by the movie companies decades before it was legal.

Actually, many black people don’t know what a lot of people stood for. For example, many blacks don’t know they were freed by Republicans and that Democrats tried to stop them from being free, tried to stop them from being able to vote (and women too). ALL the founding fathers are somehow racist (which is an arrogant assumption by the way) when only a few people in history actually said racist things (like some confederate generals and Margaret Sanger).

You explained that I was misrepresenting it by saying that black people supported her. Well, black people support the Democrat party, who insults them, looks down on them, victimizes them (finding ways to, for they’re now trying to find ways to victimize Asians), etc. That doesn’t mean the Democrat party gives a hoot about them. They don’t give a rip that 70% of black people don’t grow up with a dad around. They only care about police interferences and rioting. Because it helps their political stance. They get something out of the police stuff, and black people succeeding is not good for them. If black people worked toward success, their bullcrap would be over. Do you know Herman Cain worked at a science place, and was confused why a white person was getting paid more than him when they were doing the same stuff. Instead of assuming “RACISTS” he asked why, and the people told him it was because the white guy had an MD. So Cain got an MD. And he got paid just like the white guy.

Wait a minute. That question makes no sense considering what you said earlier, but I have other quotes from Sanger.
From a writing in 1919: “Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods.”
And this, in 1922: “We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

From 1932: “The government should give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”

And in “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda” (written in 1921): “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue in the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

She was very good at crafting her language of caring for children and women while being repugnant for the “unfit,” “garden weeds” and “humans who should never been born at all.” In 1938, she said in a speech, “There are 1,700 special courts and 27 higher courts in Germany to review the cases certified for sterilization there,” and she assured her audience that “the rights of the individual could be equally well safeguarded here.”
German “rights,” by the way, were “safeguarded” by the likes of Dr. Josef Mengele.

However, Planned Parenthood has continued handing out the Margaret Sanger Award to honor the legacy of it’s founder. And Hillary won it in 2009, and Nancy Pelosi received the award in 2014.
Hillary even said this when she won it: “It was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. … I’m really in awe of her. There are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life, from the causes she launched and fought for and sacrificed for so greatly.”

You demand everyone do your research for you, then deny what they show you. Wow. That must be really hard, to not know anything and know everything at the same time.

Read your last sentence whenever you have a thought. Should keep you closer to reality.

It's not my fault you just believe whatever people tell you.

Is there a difference? So r u saying that the stages of life should be reassigned 4 humans specifically? First, embryo, then fetus, then baby, then juvenile, then adult, etc.?

No, it’s not lying. Ppl who coined these terminologies were lying to ppl 2 ease their conscience tho. How else would they have presented such a sick wicked practice 2 b legalized without disgusting the ppl involved?

And do you know that abortion was started 2 weed down the black population? That was an actual racist. & her system is freaking working!!! If we really think black lives matter, why the heck are we killing them off in droves?

What is the difference? One’s younger? So is a banana not a banana when it’s green?

Yes, i know we do. But I added “embryo” which would only apply to humans and not animals. So I’m saying if embryos aren’t babies, we should add them to the stages of life. (Except we don’t go around calling animals that, so it wouldn’t work).

“Abort a fetus” instead of “vacuum a baby,” “kill a baby,” etc. They say things in high-up terminology no one understands. Then you don’t have to think about how vile it is. Do you even know what fetus means, besides the fact that it’s Latin and not English? How is this any different from when the middle-ages Catholic Church used to read the Bible in Latin and were dishonest about what it said and used guilt as a business? This is just using people’s ill knowledge to dodge guilt, just like the catholic church used to use it to incite guilt. The stuff they call abortion is very sugar-coated. Pro-choice is extremely insulting, since the baby has no say in living. You’re basically fighting for the right to mindlessly kill millions that never got to say if they wanted to live or not, and calling it a choice. Should I fight for the right to kill a person I don’t like, and call it pro-choice?

Margaret Sanger literally said things about it that are available to be watched. She is the racist. She was a white person who literally hated black people specifically, and abortion was a way she wanted to eliminate them. She literally once said a slave mother can’t have free children. For people who also hate Trump for the disabled reporter (which isn’t the whole story) she routinely targeted the disabled. And Planned Parenthood’s website calls her a hero. Many things she believed and did are horrifying but often line up with the left.

Seeds and embryos are different, though. Seeds aren’t alive and will never be because they’re growing into non living things.

Uhh, no we don’t. Have you seen an ultrasound of an abortion? And then the blood involved?

God didn’t kill children because He didn’t want them in the world. He created the children, so if He didn’t want them, He wouldn’t have made them. Matter of fact, when Israelites killed their children, He literally says in Ezekiel, “You slaughtered My children.”

If she wants control over her body, she ought to not get busy. Also a baby is not equal to her.

That’s what abortion is. Calling murder a choice.

Unless the mom is about to die, birth control should never be practiced. And Christians shouldn’t be forced to fund it. Lila Rose slammed Biden for saying he was Catholic and therefore Catholics should all vote for him, when he supports abortion. Plus, he is for allowing transgender men to play in women’s sports.

"Seeds aren’t alive and will never be because they’re growing into non living things"

What in the holy shitballs are you talking about?

Plants grow into non living things? Where do you live Dude?

The Underworld?

Nobody argues against adoption.
It’s the friendly option.

But fetuses will grow into something that will be able to. Banana seeds won’t.

Nowadays people are fighting for a mother’s right to get rid of babies after they’re born.

And they fight for babies in the womb as well. As long as the baby is inside the mommy, it’s not a human being. It has to be outside the mom to be a human. So what defines human being then?

"Nowadays people are fighting for a mother’s right to get rid of babies after they’re born."

Adoption? That's already legal, Dude.

I know they’re “living” but they can’t talk or think.

Neither can a fetus in the early stages of development, or some people in comas.

Uh, do you realize what an idiot you are? Of course not, you're an idiot.

So, you agree with Memeslammer that plants aren't alive but think *I'm* the idiot?

I know they aren’t considered alive if they can think or talk. I equated them because banana seeds are just as valuable as bananas. Why aren’t “human seeds” just as valuable as humans?

I know they’re alive, but they can’t talk or think. So “killing” them isn’t the same as killing a baby. And a seed is a banana seed whether people would want to acknowledge that or not; same with a baby. An embryo is a human embryo, from the moment it exists. It won’t grow into a dinosaur, so it’s not identity-less. So we should quit classifying them as non-human.

Yeah, an abortion ultrasound was what turned Abby Johnson against abortion, while she was the head of a huge abortion clinic. There is a lot of blood involved in abortions (she had one by the way, and it was quite bloody and she didn’t know if she’d survive, but she was still for abortion after that).

If you’re talking about the Egyptians, there were no babies chasing the Israelites, only warriors.

So now you’re supporting not just control over her body, but irresponsible control over her body. She can do whatever she wants, and kill someone to avoid the consequences.

Now that is some garbage. Do people’s values go up every time they reach a different stage, then? This is exactly what made me mad at all authority when I was young. Everyone treated you more inferior the younger you were. I thought the smaller you were, the less important you were. Never then did I know that the world actually fought for this on the subject of newborn babies.

Birth control? I have personal reasons for hating that, but to be honest, if all humans did this we would decrease in population rather quickly. And birth control is another form of abortion if you’re talking about the things that keep you from getting pregnant.

Well, nice way to discredit someone who actually has a heart for little ones and started her own coalition at age 15 because of it.

Transgender is basically identity denial. Men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men. And there are a whole host of reasons I would not want a guy who transgendered into a woman playing in the same sport as me if I were a girl. One being strength and mass.

"Never then did I know that the world actually fought for this on the subject of newborn babies."

Newborn babies? Who mentioned newborn babies?

Science & religion.

Now that u mention it, pretty much whatever u hear from ur parents, the news, or school is what u’re told to believe. So, the Bible can fall prey to that, but tbh, so can evolution. Or anything political, or anything we believe about the world. Technically, no one was there to see a lot of things, so we cant prove much. The thing about the Bible is someone claimed to be there when it all happened, & evolution is some guy from 1850 deciding he knows better.

Hmmm, ok I’ll take that into consideration then.

I know that (and God did say no one would find any traces of them as well). But I’ve had people ask me how do we know God existed if no human has seen Him. (Which Moses did, partially, but anyway, God can’t show Himself to us because we are way too blemished). I’m asking though, should we trust an eyewitness account, or what someone said 150 years ago? People have said there’s no evidence of Jesus’ existence, but there’s more evidence of His existence than Caesar’s. He is mentioned in books outside the Bible, by people who didn’t even believe in Him, and by people who lived shortly after Him.

There were accounts from Jews that hated Him that acknowledged His existence. What some said were quite condescending, but they didn’t deny He existed. Also there were some Romans who knew about Him (before Paul came and preached, or Peter had the vision and preached to Cornelius), but I don’t remember their names, because I studied that years & years ago.

We know Caesar existed because of accounts written during and after his life. Some are eyewitness testimonies, and some weren’t. It’s the exact same with Jesus. He had accounts written during and after His life, some eyewitness and some not. Actually, if you count the gospels, three were eyewitness testimonies and one (Luke) was not an eyewitness testimony. (Also Mark is Peter’s gospel. If you read Peter’s works, you’ll notice he never actually writes. He dictates. This means he was likely unable to write.)

Then a Jew named Joseph (not of Arimathea, but I do think he wrote about Jesus once too) said this in a book he wrote: “And among them was a man named Jesus. He was a doer of many great signs.”

Also, the people of Israel had sensible reactions to Jesus. Some thought He was a demon, or a faker, or a blasphemer, and that He broke the Sabbath (which was a sensible concern considering that they got kicked out of their land until the land rested for the amount of Sabbaths they’d broken). Others thought He was doing too many wonderous things to not be what He claimed to be. And it was clear He wasn’t insane or dumb. He shut teachers up routinely.

Well, that is an arrogant thing to say.

No, it doesn’t. That’s why they keep making up different versions of it & hiding behind corners & destroying evidence that they don’t like (Dawkins did this once).

Adam & Eve would have seen creation, but it’s likely that God Himself would have written a portion of Genesis, & when the Hebrews invented the dialect (there’s strong evidence Hebrews started the alphabet & not the Phoenicians [especially b/c they would have needed it since God was telling them 2 write down instructions & directions routinely]) Moses would have written it down as God told him. Tbh if u want a fair view of how the Bible can fit in 2 history, the Patterns of Evidence series (they’re still making them afaik) have some quite strong proofs of the Hebrew ppl being exactly as depicted in the Bible.

No, i have doubted the Bible many times. Sometimes even now. Especially when it says God cares, often i find it hard 2 trust that. I said that b/c Darwin noticed microevolution, & extrapolated it & created a whole new system by which the universe was created, which he had no business doing. In simpler words, the microevolution was what he actually observed, & the macroevolution was his unwarranted extrapolation, going against what scientists commonly believed 4 millennia. Darwin even mentioned in his book that there were fields they didn’t know about that could be raised against his hypothesis. Well, alleles & DNA serve as that today. The problem is, i personally think Darwin was the most honest evolutionist of all time, which is kinda sad. Although he did extrapolate, he didn’t seem arrogant and all-knowing like modern scientists are.

Like what?

Anything from Answers in Genesis. There’s another one i learned about but I’ll have 2 remember what it was. They have answers to a lot of things ppl say, even some of the questions I’ve seen u ask.

My question is why is it scientific to assume an accident created our world when we’ve nvr seen that happen b4? Creation creates, accidents destroy; that’s what we’ve seen. & that should draw a conclusion w/ Lyell(Darwin’s inspiration)’s claim “The present is the key to the past.”

Wait a minute. If an organization believes in creation, it’s not a scientific organization? Then your question is unanswerable, because no scientific research paper can support something if supporting it makes it unscientific.

The Big Bang is a blow up & a total event of completely random chance, unless some Being created it. However, God wouldn’t need a Big Bang to create anything, and life begets life. Life has never come from nothing, and it never will. Even if we artificially “create” life it still came from a creator.

Yeah. Every time a baby is born. :)
Have you or scientists ever seen an explosion leave life forms?

When we create something, it is created. If we make a mistake, things don’t get created from it. Neither if some combustion happens. Matter of fact, have we ever seen an explosion happen for no reason?

1) How do you know that definitively? Also do the gospels not count?

2) Peter had Mark write his gospel. Mark was his scribe. So it was still an eyewitness account. If you read Mark carefully, the gospel is specifically quite respectful to Peter and tends to gloss over his mistakes. For example, when Peter lost faith and fell in the water after walking on it for a while, the other gospels that mention it mention what he did, while Mark simply says some people’s hearts were hardened.
Technically by that logic 1 & 2 Peter aren’t Peter’s epistles because he didn’t write them. At least one was written by Silvanus. But he says “Through Silvanus...I have written to you.”

3) Josephus was one of the people who mentioned Him. No, I didn’t say he was an eyewitness, I said he was one of the accounts from after the fact. It would be really suspicious if, after a person’s death, no one wrote about this person, if they were supposed to be all the rage in their life time. Caesar had accounts of him written after he died. And he still does today.

4) Speaking of king accounts (because that’s basically what Caesar was, a dictator), 1 & 2 Kings and Chronicles are accounts of Israelite kings (some of which overlap with prophets’ books as well, by the way). If we trust Caesar existed, or that Egyptian pharaohs existed, why not the Israelite kings, who used the exact same form of keeping their legacies known as the pharaohs and Assyrian and Babylonian kings? Matter of fact, the Bible mentions in one book that there is a book of the kings of Babylon (in the exact formal way they say there’s one for Israel).

5) Scholars are educated and intelligent, but they do not decide truth.

6) The disciples weren’t even sure he was legitimate after His death. They were depressed. So it’s not like they just had some thoughtless bias. And insane people don’t outlogic the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus shut them up to the point where they quit asking Him questions.

You are wrong, the question is "Who were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, James, Peter, Jude and Paul?" You have no intellectual ability, but you have thoroughly master regurgitation of propaganda. What a useful idiot.

Whatever. Do whatever is right in your own eyes, invent your own truth, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die, seize the day, life has no meaning, if that's what you chose. Bottom line is in your truth, accepted historical protocols are meaningless. Facts, evidence and proofs are meaningless. Applicability is useless. Truth? What is truth? In your world it doesn't exist, much less matter. You live under the absolute absurdity that life doesn't begin at the beginning, even though someone can see the meaningless cluster of cells in a fertility clinic before they are placed in the womb. Those cells that you claim are insignificant become a human being regardless of what "truth" you proclaim. Based on this single argument you make for what passes for truth, your truth is falsehood. What other truth do you cling to that is simply lies? You don't have a very good track record, so I am not surprised that you struggle with provable truth.

"You live under the absolute absurdity..."

We all do. Life is absurd.

I just gave you a list of the authors. Christian scholars confirm this as fact. Who wrote Plato's works? Known Biblical texts are closer to the original authors than anything attributed to Plato.

Oh, so when Paul "See I have signed with my own hand." Doesn't count. Luke saying "Then we sailed..." means someone wrote it 400 years later (be careful because you will walk right into the unpleasant truth- for all atheists). John didn't write his letters or attest to the veracity? Yeah right. And Paul didn't send letters to various churches and tell them to read other letters he wrote, yeah right. Why is everything confirmed by contemporary historians and even Roman records?
What does it feel like when the foundation you stand on is a totality of lies?

Duh. Think really hard then read.

whatever.

whatever, kill them all. We'll never know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Kill them all. That's the smart thing to do, very scientific, fetus, kill kill!

You may say he/she is a human, but you don’t argue like he/she is a human.

First i didn’t say “some” blood, I said “a lot”.

Have you seen Unplanned? I recommend you do.

Oh, you mean the Flood, which He said He’d never do again? It says that no one cared about Him except Noah. That includes the children. Also there are theological theories about babies that die before they have a chance to believe in God or not. Also, the Bible is not the only religion that indicates a Flood happened.

Terminating a pregnancy? Terminate means to destroy. You’re basically destroying pregnancy. It’s a nice way to sugarcoat what’s happening, but in this case, we’re just using fancy words so no one will think about what it is.

Well, some liberals want to push the limit to killing babies to after they were born. And it’s fought for on the subject of unborn babies too. And you are arguing for that.

Would it? Humans are not having enough babies to keep the population growing anymore. (This is a fairly recent modern problem by the way). In order to keep the population on an upward incline, every married couple has to have at least 2.2 babies, which is happening less and less now. Many people in the Baroque times had like 10-16 kids.

That is not different at all. Both are interfering with the natural process of reproduction.

Sugar-coating abortion terms is lying to the public. She’s just trying to stop a sick practice. Also, she isn’t a liar just because you said so.

“Identify” is another word for “pretending to be.” It’s the epitome of denial.

And that is ridiculous. That assumes all people are atheists and pretending to be Christians, which is what is going on with transgenders. Men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men has no equation with Christians because we started out as Christians, unless we’re converts, but even transgender isn’t conversion, because it’s defying what your body is designed to do. Your body will never actually be the opposite gender, no matter what you do.

"Well, some liberals want to push the limit to killing babies to after they were born."

Are you willing to back this up with evidence from a neutral source?

I heard it in some video by some liberal politician. I hope to God that that is the only liberal that feels that way.

It honestly sounds like you've misunderstood something. Also, you said earlier 'some Liberals think that', not one guy.

"The Earth warming up because of human activity is agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. I would think they would know what they're talking about."

If they're saying that, it just means they're afraid to go against left-wing narratives. Sure, humans may be speeding up the warming trend, but climate change is a natural part of the planet's climatic cycle, and has been for billions of years. It can't be stopped, and would happen whether we were here or not.

We're still in an ice age, for crying out loud. That's why we still have polar ice caps. We're just currently in what's called an interglacial period.

But there have been at least 5 major ice ages in the planet's history, and between them, the Earth's average temperature was much warmer than it is now.

Right, because no scientist has ever had cancel culture come after them...

That’s what i hear when i try to say he/she is a living being. Or that he/she is a blob of tissue. What do you hear?

It’s cutting off body parts to put them somewhere else. The entire process is a sickening topic, tbh. What is it, then?

Yeah it is, but the ppl who support it use charts that contain disinformation. For example, i 4got where i saw this, but i saw a chart that said the avg temp in 2010 for where i live was a temperature it could not have possibly been, b/c it rarely even got as cold as they said. Idk if they know what they’re talking about, but some of the things they say are definitely not true.

Yeah but if u say an embryo is alive, they tend to say just what i said.

Wdym source? I asked what it was. Ik some details about it, but I’d prefer not to say those on a kid-friendly site.

Yea i would say so, except i watched observable weather patterns & got information from meteorologists and climatologists. I’m a lil confused as to why the information has been inconsistent. It’s something i usually put on the shelf b/c I’m quite suspicious about it. I’m not going 2 say ppl r paid off 2 say that, (although i wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case), but ihni why it’s a political issue, just like COVID. Any time something scientific or unrelated to politics is brought into politics, i get suspicious of why it’s brought there. Especially when i hear like “Those rightists believe this obviously untrue thing while we leftists acknowledge reality.” Which is a constant pattern.

So basically we have a lesser understanding of science than liberals b/c we know babies have hands & feet at less than 4 wks old, can try 2 pull away from the suction tube, & recognize baby humans as valuable as humans. We consider humans more valuable than animals, but baby animals are more valuable than baby humans. It makes no kind of sense logically or scientifically.

Do you mean LGBTQ+? B/c gay sex cant produce children scientifically, & no one argues that point. Transgender operations make me uncomfortable 2 explain in detail, & it’s more of a spiritual problem anyway. There’s a person who said he’s asked transgenders “When did you ever feel like you weren’t good enough?” And he’s always gotten an answer to that question. Identifying as something you’re not isn’t even scientific; it’s just living in denial. I can decide to call myself a 6’ 7” Korean 15-year-old girl, but it has no bearing on reality. A person that stands 6’6” is still taller than me, I was created as a guy, and I’m not just 15.

Evolution is literally a bunch of nonsense. All they’ll do is keep changing science around and solve one problem at a time while creating millions of years of other problems. I’d trust someone who was far closer to the time of creation than what some guy from 1850 decided was true. Literally almost all the genius scientists from the mid 1000s (like the 1400s-1700s) were all devout Christians. Did you know Isaac Newton, the guy who just up & created calculus b/c his day’s math wasn’t advanced enough for his science studies, retired science in his later years to do a thorough study on the book of Daniel? It’s not like no one with a brain will believe in God. And i saw an article about how Darwin was wrong on the origin of the universe, & how they would look for alternate explanations, but creation wasn’t even listed. Shows you how predetermined they come toward science. That isn’t even science. Science is supposed to be objective. But scientists are often too arrogant to realize this. There are agnostics that say the atheistic position is an arrogant position, or that they don’t see y the scientific community is so snooty 2ward religion (b/c the two are not opposites).

Climate change is not really provable. It’s more what we’re told to believe (which u prolly know what i have 2 say about anything like that). Also, some scientists don’t think climate change is as big a problem as they’re making it out 2 be, if it even is a problem.

Bullshit. What is the normal range of variation in the earth's temperature? Climate Change propagandists insist it is zero. Any cyclical variation is attributed to one cause. Mankind's activity. Plants cannot survive on less than 300 ppm CO2, yet propagandists want us to believe their "science" that anything over 350 ppm will destroy the planet. Greenhouses inject up to 2000 ppm CO2 to increase production. 10,000 ppm is the OSHA threshold for a hazardous to health situation. CO2 supposedly reflects heat back to the earth causing warming, physics says it mus then also reflect heat from the sun back into space it's called equilibrium. But the "science" of climate change says CO2 is a one way reflector. CO2 is not uniformly distributed through the atmosphere, it is concentrated downwind of rain forests and areas with extensive vegetation where decomposing vegetative matter releases CO2- a component of the complex hydrocarbons that photosynthesis produces.
Climate changers insist that plants can distinguish between so called "natural" CO2 and "manmade" CO2, therefore balancing natural sources, but overwhelming the atmosphere with evil man made CO2 which presumably will accumulate until all life is destroyed.
Oceans covered much of the world in the past. The oil and natural gas we utilize today was formed on the bottom of ancient oceans that covered Texas, Pennsylvania and all other oil producing regions.
The earth is not static- climate science is built on the very foundation that it is.
The recent forest fires in California this year alone released 500 times more CO2 than all of the activity of mankind in the last 25 year. Nature produces 10,000 times more CO2 than mankind.
But the real clue that climate change is not science is found in the solution. Raise taxes. Oh, yeah, that's scientifically proven to change the temperature of the planet.

4jxgsu.jpg (click to show) What 400 ppm looks like

Once again the only comment I can respond to close to your CO2 comments is this one, the only option on those is flag them which I don't want to do. Did you look at the graphic of what 400 ppm looks like?
Before the Obama administration decide it served the national interest to destroy my former profession, I was extensively involve in gas measurement. From wellhead to consumer, it's all about removing extras in Natural Gas. Some of it is called natural gas liquids which we use for polyester and other fibers, plastics, etc, other stuff is butane, ethane and propane, etc. The idea is that by the time it gets to a furnace it's pure methane. If you have any CO2 introduced into a pipeline it is considered a major contaminant and can get an entire pipeline full of gas condemned and rejected and can cost you a major contract which is how most gas is sold. CO2 is a big deal. I won't go into the engineering and physics on how it is removed, but I want to convey this, I tested for CO2 concentrations on a daily basis, as well as other gases. I know what 400 ppm looks like. I also know OSHA standards for when CO2 is considered a hazard- OSHA doesn't get worked up until it gets to 10,000 ppm. I measured gas concentrations in exposed spaces---- I know what 400 ppm is. There is no way it is destructive. It is essential for life. Carbon based lifeforms require it for existence. Without CO2 we all die.
Science has proven that water vapor drives temperature more than any other component of the atmosphere. People think CO and CO2 are equally deadly because they aren't educated in those things, but if you tell them the same water vapor that steams up your bathroom shower and clear your sinuses is warming the planet and going to kill us all they recognize that as bullshit. They know that water vapor hits a level them precipitates, entraining gases that soak into aquifers we use for drinking water. Everyone saw the igniting faucet films from water bearing peat stringers in aquifers (not gas wells), but they don't know that turning on their water taps to fill a glass of water releases CO2 into the atmosphere. It's not as simple as the so called experts want your to believe.
Bottom line is we're told 350 ppm is the perfect balance, and 400 ppm is putting us the path to the dreaded tipping point- no hope of return and only mankind is the source of the excess destructive CO2. 50 ppm cannot do what they say it is doing, it is not physically possible.

And more fake Republican science for you. Climate Changers say burning fossil fuels is causing CO2 to skyrocket. We have meticulous records of oil and gas production, coal not so much because there was no formal record keeping for the centuries prior to 1900. We have produced and consumed less than 1 trillion barrels of oil and it's equivalent, calculated at the dirtiest, nastiest, highest level of CO2 emissions, we would have added 8 ppm to the atmosphere since 1854. Where did the other destructive 42 ppm come from then?
Another fact is that not all oil is used for transportation- cars are said to be the prime destroyers of all that is good. 35-45% of oil is used for transportation while the balance provides a chemical feedstock that releases no CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, in your "scientific" world where male and female chromosomes are readily manipulated by surgical mutilation that would make Mengele proud, where life doesn't begin when it begins and government is the only solution and propaganda is the only truth, enjoy your Great Reset- coming the day after Joe Harris/Biden is inaugurated. Look it up on the World Economic Forum website, weforum.org. You'll find that the only solution to the world's problems is found in a Marxist based theory with one harmonious world government, one harmonious world currency, a one world vaccination and government id and human tracking system and all of our problems will harmoniously disappear, since the one world government crowd created the illusion of them.
I know you'll say sources sources! Find them yourself if you really care about the truth, but be honest, you don't give a rats ass about the truth on anything.

Factually wrong on every point. Liberal ideologically perfect on all points. No surprise.

What? How many decades has an unborn human being been called a nonviable tissue mass, a mere cluster of cells, not human, as if it might be a monkey or anything but human? That would be more than 40 years.
As for sexual mutilation? Sorry for using a euphemism, glue? Stitches? Whatever. FYI, glue is very common in surgeries where they are trying to minimize scaring, such as repairing facial injuries, so you no what, yes gluing on parts stands
And 80% of record high temperatures world wide occurred before internal combustion engines were invented, excluding urban heat islands (pavement heat teaps).
I rest my case.

And you can't read. How long is an embryo and embryo? Why do you act as if an embryo can only become a human being if the mother permits it. To demonstrate the absurdity of your embryo argument, let's say only Republican mothers declare 100% of their embryos to be human and Democrat mothers declare 50% of their embryos to be human. Does that mean 50% of potential Democrats are not human?

LOL