Home - List All Discussions

MC3 Please abort spinwiddy's account

It's your right to choose!!

by: nancyu

Abort spinwiddy already, she's an irritating parasite. Enough with the we need to be holier- than thou and allow- free- speech crap.
She is free to spew her crap elsewhere, this is YOUR forum!
Do it now! Don't wait until it's too late!
We support your right to choose to abort pro aborts!!!!
Can you be coerced?
Will adding a poll help convince you that this is the intelligent and responsible thing to do?

reply from: saucie

That your sorry excuse for a person should be banned.
Then thereafter, someone arrest your parents....they suck.

reply from: bozo

BEEP BEEP
BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP
*juggle* *juggle-juggle*
*slipping on a banana peel* *ouch*
Seems like you needed some help from a clown. Feeling any better?

reply from: leftsfoil

It's enough to curdle your milk isn't it?

reply from: bozo

Excuse me but this is a forum that allows the most abusive language and harrassment to be used against prolifers BY prolifers, so why expect your personal irritation to be addressed?
Put up with it, or be consistent and demand that everyone be moderated and prevented from trolling, being harrassive and abusive, etc.
That's what Bozo thinks...
BEEP BEEP
(And don't think Bozo is being mean to you. Bozo loves you).

reply from: bozo

That your sorry excuse for a person should be banned.
Then thereafter, someone arrest your parents....they suck.
As the resident clown of this forum, I do have a litte pull, so don't say I never did you any favors.
Spinwiddy, because you have upset my friends nancyu and saucie, I hereby suspend your posting privileges for the next 15 minutes.
You may not make another post until after 10:25 PM West Coast Time, October 9, 2009.
Failure to comply could result in further disciplinary action.

reply from: saucie

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
They raised you, didn't they? Or did they just throw you to the curb and let you fend for yourself...maybe they meant to abort you and never got around to it...who knows...but, they did a crappy job either way.

reply from: yoda

Yes, we know you and carole love to attack other prolifers, but we've gotten used to that.
And we know that you will defend every proabort on the forum, so what else is new?

reply from: bozo

Yes, we know you and carole love to attack other prolifers, but we've gotten used to that.
And we know that you will defend every proabort on the forum, so what else is new?
Bozo thinks you might need a high fiber diet and that it might help with your problem and improve your disposition.
Meanwhile, please enjoy my juggling routine. It might cheer you up.
BEEP BEEP

reply from: saucie

Yes, we know you and carole love to attack other prolifers, but we've gotten used to that.
And we know that you will defend every proabort on the forum, so what else is new?
Bozo thinks you might need a high fiber diet and that it might help with your problem and improve your disposition.
Meanwhile, please enjoy my juggling routine. It might cheer you up.
BEEP BEEP
Do you realize how you sound?
Any doctor appointments in the near future?

reply from: carolemarie

HMMMM, saucie attacks me in every post he can....and then whines that people attack other prolifers!
O the irony

reply from: nancyu

I'm talking specifically about discussions of the sexuality of toddlers..
It's disgusting, innappropriate, sick and unnecessary conversation; as are many of your rantings.
And I'm talking generally about your irritating, lying, and intolerable personality.
That's what the hell I'm talking about.

reply from: Banned Member

ABORT THE SPINWIDDY ACCOUNT! (LATE TERM FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH OF THE FORUM)

reply from: nancyu

Anyone up for an abort spinwiddy internet-a-thon?
I pledge $100 cold hard cash to LDI if they abort spinwiddy!
(and I challenge other like minded individuals to do the same)

reply from: saucie

I'll just quote Nancy, she said it best:
I'm talking specifically about discussions of the sexuality of toddlers..
It's disgusting, innappropriate, sick and unnecessary conversation; as are many of your rantings.
And I'm talking generally about your irritating, lying, and intolerable personality.
That's what the hell I'm talking about.

reply from: saucie

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mental health?
You don't bond emotionally with women.
You don't bond emotionally with animals.
You don't bond with the man who raised you from the age of eight.
You've never discussed your work, your friends, or your coworkers on this board.
Do you really want to discuss mental health?
You don't bond with humanity....wow, you've got some nerve listing anything like the above!

reply from: saucie

I'm not a he...you missed the fact I had to change my account, I'm Sander.
I've watched you thru the years on this board attack anything just, decent and good about prolife...yeah, I'm going to continue to point out your hypocrisy...keep coming here and I'll continue to battle your inconsistency of prolife values.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mental health?
You don't bond emotionally with women.
You don't bond emotionally with animals.
You don't bond with the man who raised you from the age of eight.
You've never discussed your work, your friends, or your coworkers on this board.
Do you really want to discuss mental health?
I do emotionally bond with women. I have been in love several times. I just don't have sex with women any time I feel like it.
I have an appreciation for wild animals.
I had one dog, the family dog, when I lived at my grandmothers. Toby, a huge giant of a dog. The best dog we ever had.
The man my mother married didn't like children. He still doesn't like children.
I don't have to discuss who my friends are in this forum. I have friends in this forum and others not in this forum.
I have made many pro-life friends online and have friends at work.
Mental health?
I have written two science fiction scripts, authored nearly 600 poems.
I am a landscape painter, a photographer, a guitarist for 20 years, a lover of classical music since childhood and occasionally opera now.
I love pro football and baseball and sports.
I am a Christian who has had read the entire Bible and I have read the Quran as well. I study history and theology.
In school I was identified as having special gifts and talents from a young age.
I was a member of the National Honor Society, baseball player and graduated third in my class.
What have you done lately? other than annoy the hell out of everyone on this forum?

reply from: saucie

Love your new sig, Augustine. It's the truth spoken well.
And kudos on all your worthy accomplisments.

reply from: Banned Member

No, let me answer Spinwiddy. What do you do Spinwiddy? You sleep with men, you support abortion because you took money from abortion groups. You write checks out to political action groups paid for by your action figure man-thing and you sterilize animals and clean up poop. Is that roughly correct?

reply from: saucie

TRANSLATION: (courtesy of prolifehypocrite2English.com)
Assert my own presumed moral superiority over anyone who dares disagree with me on any point, not by rationally addressing their positions, but by calling them names and generally behaving like a spoiled 3 y/o...
I see they let you out of your cage again....too bad you have keepers that have some compassion.

reply from: Banned Member

Carol does not women to experience the pain of her own abortions and yet is unwilling to condemn abortion because such a condemnation of abortion would be self accusing. It's something of a mental Stockholm Syndrome of the conscience. Carol can never truly convict abortion, because she herself chose abortion. So in the end, while she does not want other women to choose abortion, she ultimately sympathizes with women who do choose abortion. That creates something of a martyr and messiah complex in her mind. She thinks she is saving women from abortion and perhaps she has some. But in truth, she is really doing nothing to rid the world of abortion.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
I've slept with three men in my forty-seven years. My shortest romantic relationship was just under five years. What a wh0re.
What money did I ever take from an abortion group?
You envy my man because he's masculine and successful. He's also a former Republican chair in his county and is now a playa' in the Libertarian Party. He's never written a check for my liberal causes.
As for my job, I've been lauded by the Humane Association of the USA, The National Cattleman's Beef Association, The California Dairy Association, and the Center for Disease Control - then I sit on the board of a spay-neuter 503(c), as well as a German Shepherd rescue and an adult cat rescue - after that I neuter the animals so 5 million homeless creatures aren't euthanized in this country every year, and then I clean up turds.
Any questions?
None. Augustine described you perfectly.

reply from: nancyu

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Actally, she's done more hands-on activism than you, Lila, and Gingi COMBINED. None of you has aver done ANYTHING to avert an abortion, and Carol has.
You reek of envy.
And you just reek.

reply from: galen

Really? REALLY?
i thought i would read this thread just for fun... all it did was make me sad.
you all sound like a group of 6 year old girls...

reply from: bozo

Is the prevention of one abortion "something" or "nothing" towards the end of ridding the world of abortion?

reply from: Shenanigans

I'm Pro-Life, no exceptions, no compromise, no apologies!!
Spinny has a right to life!
Save the Spinny!!
(Plus, if you abort Spinny, the forum might get bandwidth cancer or memory health issues).

reply from: bozo

I'm not a he...you missed the fact I had to change my account, I'm Sander.
I've watched you thru the years on this board attack anything just, decent and good about prolife...yeah, I'm going to continue to point out your hypocrisy...keep coming here and I'll continue to battle your inconsistency of prolife values.
You're right!
I remember when she attacked faithman.
After he called her a "scanc" and a "whore" seven thousand times she said, "stop bullying me."
The nerve of her to attack such a kind-hearted decent Christian man.
What a hypocrite.
I bet those hundreds of babies she's saved by sidewalk counseling are now in training to become abortionists!
You're doing God's work by discouraging her phony pro-life work. You must keep it up until she stops saving babies, because it doesn't really count if she doesn't do it the right way, and it's better they die than to be saved by such a phony!
BEEP BEEP

reply from: Shenanigans

Some Spinnys are banned by chance. No Spinnys should be banned by choice.
Its a Spinny not a choice.
One banned, one wounded.
What's pro-forum about banning Spinnys?
Banning stops a posting Spinny.

reply from: nancyu

NO ONE is harmed by banning a spinny! It's not even a person!

reply from: yoda

There's the "kiss of death". When spitwaddy endorses you as a prolifer, you're done. Might as well give up the effort, carole, you've been kissed by death itself.

reply from: nancyu

Mark's forum -- Mark's Choice
And aborting spinwiddy is the healthy choice!

reply from: MC3

To Those Who Want Me To Ban Selected Posters:
Since launching the forum, I have made it clear that only in the most extreme circumstances would we censor the forum or ban someone from participating. Because of that, we have deleted very few posts and, to the best of my recollection, banned only 5 posters. By the way, two of the banished posters claimed to be pro-life and we have even removed things that were posted by friends of mine when we felt like they crossed over the line.
One of the criticisms I've had thrown at me is that we should ban our enemies because that is what they do to us on their forums. But my first response is to point out that we are better people than that. Further, we don't need to use censorship in order to make our position prevail. It can do so on its own merit. The other side uses the "delete button" on our people in order to avoid issues and arguments for which they know they have no rational response. We have no such need.
I also think we should look upon the degenerates like Spinwiddy who post here as a source of great encouragement. The preposterous and moronic things these people routinely say should prove to you that the pro-choice mob is not just morally bankrupt, they are intellectually limited as well. That's important because, as world history demonstrates, while amoral and dim-witted barbarians can sometimes defeat even the most powerful army, they inevitably lose their power to those who are smarter and in the service of a noble cause.
Now, I can certainly understand that the godless pro-aborts and the squishy Kumbaya-singing pro-lifers who come here would bother you. They bother me too. But remember, our goal here is to win not to be comfortable. And the simple fact is that we gain far more from exposing these people that we could ever hope to gain from banning them.
I have an analogy that may provide a solution for those who are unhappy with my "no-ban" philosophy. When I was young, my little sister would often intentionally toment me knowing that the prohibition against hitting her was painfully enforced by my father. My only rational course of action was to IGNORE her. Of course, I have to concede that this approach was not nearly as satisfying as putting a knot on her head, but it was less risky and generally successful.

reply from: BossMomma

I'll pledge $200 if your account could be aborted, you are just another trolling, child exploiting waste of space not doing anything to back up your mouth.

reply from: Banned Member

This whole post was obviously tongue in cheek, as some I am sure are incapable of understanding due their general lack of intelligence.
Spare the forum, spoil the Spinny!

reply from: yoda

Did someone insult your "sweetie"?

reply from: saucie

Did someone insult your "sweetie"?

reply from: Shenanigans

Every Spinny a wanted Spinny?????

reply from: nancyu

Well, I'm a girl. If your sister was like spinwiddy, I would have put that knot on her head.

reply from: nancyu

I'll pledge $200 if your account could be aborted, you are just another trolling, child exploiting waste of space not doing anything to back up your mouth.
I think MC should accept your $200. But I would get the cash up front if I were him.

reply from: nancyu

Yes it was somewhat tongue in cheek, but man wouldn't it be sweet? I truly think he should do it. It would be like a 220 pound weight being lifted from the shoulders of the forum.
(and no hitting is involved!)

reply from: MC3

Nancyu:
You said, "If your sister was like spinwiddy, I would have put that knot on her head."
Well first off, even at her worst, my sister could never have been compared to some sewer rat like Spinwiddy.
Beyond that, there was a time when the attitude you expressed was embraced by both me and my brother. However, the result was that we would inevitably end up hopelessly pleading our innocence in front of our father while our smirking 6-year-old sister stood behind him with her tongue sticking out.
Please understand that I am not suggesting she didn't deserve the "corrective measures" my brother and I so enjoyed inflicting upon her. She did. It's just that she was younger than us and the only girl and she could play my father like a Stradivarius. So with a keen eye toward self-preservation, our strategy became to just leave her alone. Like I admitted earlier, it was a pretty unsatisfying solution but it kept the carnage to a minimum.

reply from: faithman

Every Spinny a wanted Spinny?????
snicker.......

reply from: Banned Member

If we could reduce the number of unplanned Spinnys, we wouldn't have to abort them. Perhaps being a Spinny, is a condition that is incompatible with normal life. How sad!

reply from: bozo

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
"Sewer rats" are not "our neighbors" and therefore we don't have to love them.
I think Jesus said somewhere that we are SUPPOSED to kick them to the curb and otherwise, demean, demonize, and humiliate.
When I find the supporting passages I'll get back to you.

reply from: BossMomma

Did someone insult your "sweetie"?
No, my sweetie doesn't post here.

reply from: Banned Member

Did someone insult your "sweetie"?
No, my sweetie doesn't post here.
Gross!

reply from: BossMomma

Did someone insult your "sweetie"?
No, my sweetie doesn't post here.
Gross!
Yeah, a loving committed relationship would disgust you wouldn't it o'flacid wonder.

reply from: nancyu

But how?! I've never heard of a spin-control pill. And I don't see how condoms would work here. And what about all the "potential" spinwiddy's who are already here, have a heartbeat, are growing, can feel pain, have fingers and toes; we should be able to kill those -- they don't even exist yet!
There must be a way! We must find a way, or the world will be overpopulated with spinwiddies. You know, those "populations" that there are "too many of". Even one spinwiddy is too many. Spinwiddies are so damaging to the environment.
And aside from all that, where will we get all the hay to feed them!?

reply from: nancyu

MC3, like I said in the original post. It's time to cut the holier-than-thou nonsense. We are not "better people than that". We are ALL imperfect.
Spinwiddy is obviously not unintelligent, and she knows the pro abort strategy: Since the truth is not on their side, they must encourage sexuality at younger and younger ages (toddlers!?? come on!) and slander pro life people, to turn others away from the pro life message. Whether we like them or not, these strategies can be effective.
You should not allow her this forum to do that.
Our focus shouldn't be on appearing better than them. It should be on stopping the killing. We have to put these people in their place or they will keep stepping on this forum, and ultimately stepping on unborn children.

reply from: saucie

MC3, like I said in the original post. It's time to cut the holier-than-thou nonsense. We are not "better people than that". We are ALL imperfect.
Spinwiddy is obviously not unintelligent, and she knows the pro abort strategy: Since the truth is not on their side, they must encourage sexuality at younger and younger ages (toddlers!?? come on!) and slander pro life people, to turn others away from the pro life message. Whether we like them or not, these strategies can be effective.
You should not allow her this forum to do that.
Our focus shouldn't be on appearing better than them. It should be on stopping the killing. We have to put these people in their place or they will keep stepping on this forum, and ultimately stepping on unborn children.
Agree 100%.

reply from: saucie

You think because you post last names you're getting a real jab in?
To say you're a sewer rat is to insult all sewer rats.
And you most certainly have talked about and encouraged sexuality for toddlers.

reply from: saucie

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Excuse me?
The subject of children's sexuality came from an article by Iowa right to Life. I guess they're a pack of NAMBLA-like pervs.
I have NEVER "encouraged" sexuality for toddlers, I just recognized that they are sexual creatures ALL ON THEIR OWN.
There is NO excuse for you....and thanks for admitting it right here for everyone to see.

reply from: MC3

To Nancyu and Saucie:
First, it is not "holier-than-thou nonsense" to say that we are better people than our enemies. And we can rightly assert that without claiming to be either perfect or good. Understand, "perfect" and "good" are absolute values where "better" is a relative one. As an extreme example of this concept, surely you can accept that Mother Teresa was a "better" person than Adolf Hitler without having to believe that she was perfect or even good in the Biblical sense.
Second, I strongly doubt that our forum is visited by many people who are not already pretty firm in their views about abortion. Therefore, the risk of turning people away from the pro-life message is next to zero. But for those rare visitors who may be "in play," we gain far more from having the Spinwiddies of the world here regurgitating their irrational and mindless rhetoric than we would ever gain by banning them.
If you question that, consider this: let's say you went to a forum to research a controversial issue about which you did not already have a firm conviction. Let's also say you found that the operators of the site had banned their opponents from participating. Is it not true that your first thought would be that either the forum operators must not feel confident defending their own position or that they were hiding something?
The fact is, you fight the enemy where you find them. And sometimes we find them here.
Third, until we stop them, the cowards, barbarians and moral defectives we fight against are going to continue "stepping on unborn children" whether we allow them to post on this forum or not. If that were not the case, believe me, I would pull the plug within the next 30 seconds.
The basic point I'm trying to convey is that we actually need our enemies to come to this forum. By learning their tactics and strategies in this environment, we develop the skills we need to expose and defeat them in the public arena. I heartily agree that they are a thoroughly disgraceful group of people. In fact, after interacting with them I sometimes feel that we should all go somewhere and be deloused. But whether we like it or not, the reality is that engaging them makes us better advocates for our cause. In that spirit, maybe we should just look at the Pro-Life America Forum as a kind of "boot camp."

reply from: saucie

I fully understand your POV.
Not only that, I understand this is YOUR forum, you make the rules, we follow them or scoot along.
Blessings....many, blessings to you and for your worthy efforts.

reply from: fetalisa

The prolife are always irritated when logical arguments blow their BS arguments out of the water. Since the prolife arguments can't be justified and fall like a house of cards under scrutiny, the prolife's only option is to ban free speech.

reply from: nancyu

I fully understand your POV.
Not only that, I understand this is YOUR forum, you make the rules, we follow them or scoot along.
Blessings....many, blessings to you and for your worthy efforts.
Well stated. I understand your POV also, MC3. I would never ever ever suggest that you quiet ALL of our enemies. But if you wanted to ban the ones who really really bug me, even if only temporarily, I WILL stand behind YOUR decision and wholeheartedly support YOUR right to choose!
Thanks for listening.

reply from: saucie

The prolife are always irritated when logical arguments blow their BS arguments out of the water. Since the prolife arguments can't be justified and fall like a house of cards under scrutiny, the prolife's only option is to ban free speech.
You baby murderers have never, ever had one logical argument...wow, you really do live in baby killing fantasy land.

reply from: fetalisa

That's so RICH coming from one who can't distinguish a baby from a zygote, embryo or fetus.
Here's a hint.
Why aren't the words 'zygote,' 'embryo' or 'fetus' spelled B-A-B-Y? Do you think it might be because we use completely different words to describe completely different things (as in say, the words 'cat' and 'dog' for example)?
Let me know if such a concept is too big for you to yet grasp.

reply from: BossMomma

The prolife are always irritated when logical arguments blow their BS arguments out of the water. Since the prolife arguments can't be justified and fall like a house of cards under scrutiny, the prolife's only option is to ban free speech.
Funny, you got blown out of the water not too long ago.

reply from: fetalisa

Oh you mean when you failed to explain how you divine the 'will' of a ZEF? Do you use the same method to divine the 'will' of a head of cabbage too?

reply from: saucie

That's so RICH coming from one who can't distinguish a baby from a zygote, embryo or fetus.
Here's a hint.
Why aren't the words 'zygote,' 'embryo' or 'fetus' spelled B-A-B-Y? Do you think it might be because we use completely different words to describe completely different things (as in say, the words 'cat' and 'dog' for example)?
Let me know if such a concept is too big for you to yet grasp.
And teenager doesn't mean adult either, moron.
Your argument is based on the idea that you must de-humanize the baby in the womb to soothe your sick, twisted conscience.
Good little nazi...good little nazi.

reply from: fetalisa

It most certainly can, if one is either 18 or 19 years old. You really seem to have a terrible time with FACTS.
Whereas you think dehumanizing the fully actualized, fully conscious, fully sentient and fully sapient woman somehow makes you better than me.
Oh how cute! Since you can't force those with whom you disagree to wear a scarlet letter 'A,' you instead resort to name calling. How utterly unusual for the prolife.

reply from: saucie

It still does not negate the FACT that we all go thru different stages of development, and de-humanizing the child in the womb only makes your sick, horrible mind better able to grasp the idea you murdered your own child, or are supporting the deaths of millions of helplless human beings in the womb, or just out.
Stupid liar. I've never said any such thing.
But, the FACT that I believe ALL life is valuable and deserves protection most certainly makes me better than you...
Get over yourself....you are NOT all that...I don't care what you tell yourself everyday.

reply from: fetalisa

It's so cute to see the most infantile among us pretend their PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFS somehow represent 'the truth.' Your opinions have no more bearing on my life than the mormon's opinion that caffeine is a sin has bearing on my life. Just like buttholes, everybody has opinions, including you.
You would just rather the woman have no say whatsoever over her own body, because she carries a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in her womb.
And every time I drink coffee I am sinning, simply because the mormons say so. (rolls eyes)
Neither are your PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFS.

reply from: nancyu

Oh you mean when you failed to explain how you divine the 'will' of a PROABORT? Do you use the same method to divine the 'will' of a head of cabbage too?

reply from: fetalisa

I never made the claim to know the will of all of the prochoice, but you claimed to know the will of ZEFs, as if you were a god or something. Are you ever going to answer the question as to how you know what ZEFs want or will you continue to evade the question as you always do once your logic backs you into a corner?

reply from: nancyu

I never made the claim to know the will of all of the prochoice, but you claimed to know the will of ZEFs, as if you were a god or something. Are you ever going to answer the question as to how you know what ZEFs want or will you continue to evade the question as you always do once your logic backs you into a corner?
When did I claim to know the will of unborn children? I assume that they wish to continue living, the same way I would assume other people wish to continue to live. I could be wrong about some of them, but I would never intentionally kill any innocent human being. Born or unborn, whether or not they wish to continue living.

reply from: fetalisa

Why make such an assumption for a mindless entity? How can a mindless entity have any will at all?
Given there is no law that says you must, what is your problem?

reply from: nancyu

Why make such an assumption for a mindless entity? How can a mindless entity have any will at all?
Given there is no law that says you must, what is your problem?
There is also a law saying that NO ONE has the right to intentionally kill ANY innocent human beings. It's in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
So I don't have a problem. Do you?

reply from: BossMomma

Oh you mean when you failed to explain how you divine the 'will' of a PROABORT? Do you use the same method to divine the 'will' of a head of cabbage too?
Don't you have a teenager to exploit somewhere?

reply from: fetalisa

Here's the phrase you reference:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"
How could that possibly apply to ZEFs? Do you have any example of ZEFs pursuing liberty or property? Can ZEFs participate in liberties such as free speech or participate in liberties such as exercise of religion? Because if not, it's fairly clear to me the passage is referencing people.
You obviously do. You are PERSONALLY against abortion so you do not PERSONALLY choose to have one. Yet, it's not enough to live your opinions in your own life. You also wish to poke your nose into the lives of others and FORCE them to live by your PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFs. You have no more right to do that than the mormons have the right to ban coffee to keep from drinking it simply because they PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE coffee is a sin.

reply from: saucie

It's so cute to see the most infantile among us pretend their PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFS somehow represent 'the truth.' Your opinions have no more bearing on my life than the mormon's opinion that caffeine is a sin has bearing on my life. Just like buttholes, everybody has opinions, including you.
You would just rather the woman have no say whatsoever over her own body, because she carries a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person in her womb.
And every time I drink coffee I am sinning, simply because the mormons say so. (rolls eyes)
Neither are your PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFS.
I'd rather be anything on earth...but you.
My personal beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that the baby in the womb has been de-humanized. No matter how many times you repeat it; it still won't make it so.
Your type is nothing new in this world. The world has seen it in so many other ways...nazi's, slave owners, all those who wish to hold power over another segment of humanity had to do the same thing.
It's just repulsive to actually interact with someone with the same frame of mind as a nazi/slave owner/weak human being.
So....maybe your keepers will reign you in and I won't feel like I have to be "de-loused" having to interact with such a vile, horrid creature on a regular basis.

reply from: nancyu

Here's the phrase you reference:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,"
How could that possibly apply to ZEFs? Do you have any example of ZEFs pursuing liberty or property? Can ZEFs participate in liberties such as free speech or participate in liberties such as exercise of religion? Because if not, it's fairly clear to me the passage is referencing people.
You obviously do. You are PERSONALLY against abortion so you do not PERSONALLY choose to have one. Yet, it's not enough to live your opinions in your own life. You also wish to poke your nose into the lives of others and FORCE them to live by your PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEFs. You have no more right to do that than the mormons have the right to ban coffee to keep from drinking it simply because they PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE coffee is a sin.
Fetalisa, you can drink all the coffee you want. God Bless You. But you do not have the right to intentionally kill an innocent human being. I can't prevent you from doing so, I don't know where you live, or who you are. But it doesn't change the FACT that you do NOT have a RIGHT to do it.

reply from: fetalisa

Likewise. At least we agree on something.
Your PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEF that a baby can exist in a womb does not change the MEDICAL FACT that the only thing that CAN exist in a womb is either a zygote, embryo or fetus. Your opinions do not change those FACTS. Those FACTS can be easily verified by any medical dictionary.
I haven't claimed ZEFs aren't human. I merely point out the fact we do not criminalize the killing of non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons in our society, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs. I have asked repeatedly for someone to state what harm results from killing non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons such as heads of cabbages of ZEFs, but none have been forthcoming with an answer.
Of course. That's exactly why abortion is legal in the numerous western democracies.
Neither nazis nor slaves have anything at all to do with abortion. Slaves did not inhabit the body of another as ZEFs do. Abortion concerns the rights of two entities existing in one body, one of which is a person and the other of which is not. One of which is sentient and conscious and the other of which is not. The rights of the woman trump every time, because it makes no sense whatsoever to have the rights of a mindless, non-sentient, non-sapient, non-conscious, non-person trump the rights of the unquestionable person.
You can call that nazi if you wish, but it doesn't change the FACT, that you can't take or use any part of my body without my CONSENT, even if it means you will die without the use of my body. That's just as true if you are a person as if you are a ZEF. So in that sense, the ZEFs have the exact same right to use the body of another as you or I do, ie, only with consent, but call that nazi if you will.
It's just repulsive to actually interact with someone with the same frame of mind as a nazi/slave owner/weak human being.
Oh are we afraid of catching the abortion cooties?

reply from: fetalisa

Everyone in this society has the right to kill non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs. That's exactly as it should be too.
We may not have that right in the delusional space of your mind, but we certainly do have the right to kill mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-sapient, non-persons in the world of reality outside of your mind.

reply from: nancyu

Everyone in this society has the right to kill non-sentient, non-conscious, non-persons, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs. That's exactly as it should be too.
We may not have that right in the delusional space of your mind, but we certainly do have the right to kill mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious, non-sapient, non-persons in the world of reality outside of your mind.
We do? Awesome. I can't wait to meet you!

reply from: fetalisa

Kill me and you go to jail, but that is not the case if you kill head of cabbage or a ZEF.

reply from: nancyu

Some people get away with murder. (I guess that means it's legal.)
Some people HAVE gone to jail for doing just that. (killing a ZEF, not a cabbage.)
The only one who is currently allowed by the state, to kill an unborn child is the mother of that unborn child. As you recently pointed out, this is because the child is considered her "personal property" NOT, as some claim, because the child is inside her body.
My PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEF is that God is real, and a woman who kills her own child will have to answer to Him eventually. My PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEF is that He won't be as "nice" as MC3 and carolemarie. But like I said, this is just MY PERSONALLY CHOSEN BELIEF. You can believe or not, what ever you PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE or not. You just better pray that you're right, and I'm wrong.

reply from: fetalisa

If you are referring to fetal homicide laws, the very NAME of such laws prove my point. If fetuses were persons, 'fetal' homicide laws would not be necessary, because homicide laws in and of themselves suffice for the murder of persons.
A ZEF has no more legal right to use the bodily resources of another, even if the ZEF will die without those bodily resources, then you have the right to my kidney, even if it means you will die without my kidney. Whether a ZEF needs a uterus or you need my kidney, neither have the right to either without CONSENT. THAT is the point the prolife REFUSE to address. THAT is the point at which ALL prolife arguments fall apart.
Embryos are indeed treated as property by our court systems. That does not mean the right of bodily autonomy is erased from the lives of women. WITHOUT the legal right of bodily autonomy, women may be:
1. held as slaves (without consent)
2. raped (without consent)
3. forced to carry a pregnancy to term (without consent)
So you can trivialize the right of bodily autonomy all you wish. All it does is place you firmly on the side of rapists and would be slave owners, both of which require lack of consent to achieve their aims.
You base your life on fables of talking animals. (Gen 3:1 and Num 22:28) You can't SERIOUSLY expect the rest of society to write out law based on your little magical book of talking animals, can you?
But your own little magical book of fairy tales says otherwise:
Exodus 21: 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, (CEV)
In other words, if a fetus was injured, a monetary fine was due. However, if the woman was injured, it was life for life. So even your precious little bible values the life of a fetus as less than a life of a woman.
Well it's hardly my fault you worship a fictional character who believes it moral to throw a child into a fireplace because of disobedience. I know if my neighbor were to throw their child into a fireplace for not doing their homework, I personally would call the cops to report such child abuse. I certainly wouldn't say 'well they got what they deserved for not obeying' as your morally bankrupt imaginary god is claimed to do.
For all you know, Zeus, Snow White or the Big Bad Wolf could be the one 'true' god, which means you will have wasted your entire life on ancient fairy tales.

reply from: bozo

I've got some good news for you. BEEP BEEP! Your interactions here are not necessary, contribute nothing anyway, and you are free to go.
Enjoy your new lice-free life.

reply from: nancyu

If you are referring to fetal homicide laws, the very NAME of such laws prove my point. If fetuses were persons, 'fetal' homicide laws would not be necessary, because homicide laws in and of themselves suffice for the murder of persons.
A ZEF has no more legal right to use the bodily resources of another, even if the ZEF will die without those bodily resources, then you have the right to my kidney, even if it means you will die without my kidney. Whether a ZEF needs a uterus or you need my kidney, neither have the right to either without CONSENT. THAT is the point the prolife REFUSE to address. THAT is the point at which ALL prolife arguments fall apart.
Embryos are indeed treated as property by our court systems. That does not mean the right of bodily autonomy is erased from the lives of women. WITHOUT the legal right of bodily autonomy, women may be:
1. held as slaves (without consent)
2. raped (without consent)
3. forced to carry a pregnancy to term (without consent)
So you can trivialize the right of bodily autonomy all you wish. All it does is place you firmly on the side of rapists and would be slave owners, both of which require lack of consent to achieve their aims.
You base your life on fables of talking animals. (Gen 3:1 and Num 22:28) You can't SERIOUSLY expect the rest of society to write out law based on your little magical book of talking animals, can you?
But your own little magical book of fairy tales says otherwise:
Exodus 21: 22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, (CEV)
In other words, if a fetus was injured, a monetary fine was due. However, if the woman was injured, it was life for life. So even your precious little bible values the life of a fetus as less than a life of a woman.
Well it's hardly my fault you worship a fictional character who believes it moral to throw a child into a fireplace because of disobedience. I know if my neighbor were to throw their child into a fireplace for not doing their homework, I personally would call the cops to report such child abuse. I certainly wouldn't say 'well they got what they deserved for not obeying' as your morally bankrupt imaginary god is claimed to do.
For all you know, Zeus, Snow White or the Big Bad Wolf could be the one 'true' god, which means you will have wasted your entire life on ancient fairy tales.
Yeah. You're probably right. I wouldn't worry too much about that eternal hellfire stuff either. How bad could it be anyway?

reply from: nancyu

Your interections here are not necessary, contribute nothing anyway, and you are free to go.
Enjoy your new lice-free life.
You might want to buy a punching bag to vent that anger.
Gee Wiz bozo, do you think you could muster up a little of that kind attitude you're so famous for, toward a fellow pro life person? Or are you saving it all for the murderers of unborn children?
and what's an interection?

reply from: fetalisa

You've no proof that a word of it is true, outside of fables of talking animals. For all you know, you might meet Shiva upon your death, although that is just as likely to happen as meeting Jesus, SpongeBob or My Little Pony upon your death.
It's so sad the only way religions have to convince people is to manipulate their emotions by means of fear as to what will occur in the afterlife. A logically valid argument could get the religions so much further along than attempting to jerk one's emotions back and forth like a yo-yo. It's god as mob boss. You better do what I say or I will surely break your legs. WTFEVER!

reply from: nancyu

Sure you don't want to take us up on the idea of ban-a-thon MC? Even a temporary ban would satisfy. Could be a nice little fundraising idea!

reply from: nancyu

You've no proof that a word of it is true, outside of fables of talking animals. For all you know, you might meet Shiva upon your death, although that is just as likely to happen as meeting Jesus, SpongeBob or My Little Pony upon your death.
It's so sad the only way religions have to convince people is to manipulate their emotions by means of fear as to what will occur in the afterlife. A logically valid argument could get the religions so much further along than attempting to jerk one's emotions back and forth like a yo-yo. It's god as mob boss. You better do what I say or I will surely break your legs. WTFEVER!
I'm not trying to convince you of anything feetal. And I know that I have no PROOF. That is why I said that these are my BELIEFS. By all means feel free to ignore them.

reply from: nancyu

Come on MC3 ...you can be downright abusive. Show some mercy. Can't we even have an occasional break from arguing with this pondscum, and have a moment of friendly pro life conversation?
Consider the ban-a-thon! It'll be fun!

reply from: fetalisa

Then it would be the ultimate silliness to write law based on your beliefs for which you have no proof, which are based on fairy tales of talking animals.

reply from: Shenanigans

The prolife are always irritated when logical arguments blow their BS arguments out of the water. Since the prolife arguments can't be justified and fall like a house of cards under scrutiny, the prolife's only option is to ban free speech.
Last I checked, we aren't the ones banning peaceful expression of free speech outside abortion clinics.
I for one am all for free speech, ya smelly douche bag.

reply from: Shenanigans

And people want Spinny banned?
There are worse people on this forum then Spin.

reply from: fetalisa

No doubt the history of the prolife movement is full of pristine perfection, much like jeebus himself. No siree, not so much as a bomb lobbed. Not so much as a fire started. Not so much as a doctor shot. (rolls eyes)

reply from: Shenanigans

No doubt the history of the prolife movement is full of pristine perfection, much like jeebus himself. No siree, not so much as a bomb lobbed. Not so much as a fire started. Not so much as a doctor shot. (rolls eyes)
Sorry chum, the large pool of millions of dead human beings slaughtered because you guys touched up the dictionary far by trumps any misdeeds the crazy fringe element of the PL movement has ever done.
I mean really, hair dressers are more dangerous then our nuttiest members.

reply from: Shenanigans

Why, Spinny, are those new horns? They match your udders!!

reply from: fetalisa

We do not criminalize the killing of mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons, whether they be heads of cabbages or ZEFs. I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why we SHOULD criminalize the killing of mindless, non-sentient, non-conscious non-persons.
Who touched up the dictionary? What are you talking about here? I've no idea what you mean.
You can PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE ZEFS are persons and abortion is murder, but NONE in our society are obligated to live by what you PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. Likewise if a mormon PERSONALLY CHOOSES TO BELIEVE sodas and coffee are the spawn of Satan, It DOES NOT MEAN, I can not have my caffeine, because of what the mormons PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BELIEVE.
I strongly suggest you find someone else to con. I have read far too many posts here to fall for the scam you are attempting to pull here.

reply from: nancyu

True. But it all depends on the moment --you know what I mean?

reply from: Banned Member

Spinwiddy is annoying. Fetalisa is mentally ill.

reply from: fetalisa

Quetion:
If you will die without my kidney, do you have any legal right whatsoever to use or take my kidney without my consent?

reply from: nancyu

Then it would be the ultimate silliness to write law based on your beliefs for which you have no proof, which are based on fairy tales of talking animals.
Absolutely correct. However I do have absolute proof that unborn children are persons (more so than you have provided proof of your own personhood even) and I know for a fact that the Constitution is in place to ensure that no person is deprived of life without due process. So the law is already there, it's just being conveniently ignored for the moment, because the inmates have taken over the asylum.
Hope your enjoying it, because your baby-killing party isn't going to last much longer.

reply from: fetalisa

What is your proof?
What proof do you have a ZEF has any ability whatsoever to participate in constitutional rights such as free speech or exercise of religion?
My sig not only tells me what you REALLY support, but it also tells me why your views will NEVER be enacted into our law.
Question: If you need my kidney and will die without it, do you have ANY LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOEVER to use or take my kidney without my CONSENT?
YES OR NO?

reply from: Banned Member

Quetion:
If you will die without my kidney, do you have any legal right whatsoever to use or take my kidney without my consent?
There are 6 billion people on this planet. I don't want your scuzzy kidney!

reply from: fetalisa

You don't have the LEGAL RIGHT to take or use ANY of my bodily resources without my CONSENT. Neither does a ZEF.

reply from: fetalisa

Exactly and the same is true of ZEFs. Your RIGHT TO LIFE STOPS AT THE POINT WHERE MY RIGHT TO LIBERTY BEGINS, WHETHER YOU BE A PERSON OR A ZEF!
So on what MORAL basis, do you claim ZEFs should have a right that you don't have, that I don't have and that no citizen of this country has EVER had?

reply from: yoda

They are there through no fault of their own, and they are totally dependent upon the mother. You and I don't have that moral right because we are neither inside our mothers, nor totally dependent upon her.
You're a big, mean person who can look out for her/him self (and even spend hours annoying other people). Babies need our help and protection.

reply from: fetalisa

And your kidney could be diseased through no fault of your own. Does that give you the right to take or use my kidney to prevent your own death without my CONSENT?
Yes or No?

reply from: yoda

If I am inside your HEALTHY body, and am a normal, healthy baby..... I have the right to remain there WITHOUT BEING KILLED!
And a baby does NOT TAKE A KIDNEY from it's mother!!

reply from: fetalisa

If I am inside your HEALTHY body, and am a normal, healthy baby..... I have the right to remain there WITHOUT BEING KILLED!
Bodily autonomy does not disappear depending on whether you inhabit my body or not, no more than your property rights disappear whether you are in a coma or not.
It doesn't matter whether the kidney of another is used or whether it is taken. NO ONE has the LEGAL RIGHT to USE the bodily resources of another WITHOUT CONSENT!
If your kidney could be saved by hooking yourself up to my body for a period of mine months, thus preventing your death, do you have ANY LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOEVER to hook yourself up to my body and use my bodily resources WITHOUT MY CONSENT?
YES OR NO?

reply from: fetalisa

It is FACT murder is illegal no matter what one PERSONALLY CHOOSES TO BELIEVE.

reply from: yoda

In moral sense, YES it does!
Yes, and unborn baby does.
Look, Roe was 36 years ago... can you stop repeating that "abortion is legal" yet? How many more years will you keep on repeating that?

reply from: fetalisa

Your right to life stops at the point where my rights of liberty begin. That's why you have no legal right whatsoever to hook your body up to mine without my CONSENT, even if you means you will die if you can not. And if I refuse to do this procedure and you die as a result, your remaining family has NO LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOEVER to sue me for murdering you, or homicide, or manslaughter nor anything else, because you had no rights whatsoever to my body to begin with.

reply from: fetalisa

None in our society are obligated to live by your moral sense but you. And it is the LEGAL sense that matters. NOTHING in our law requires forced donation of one's bodily resources for another, which is why you will die if you need to use my kidney and I refuse consent, and your remaining family have no legal standing whatsoever to sue me for murdering you, or homicide, or manslaughter or anything else if it happened.
No it doesn't. She has the right to refuse to donate her bodily resources so that another may live, just as she has the right to refuse to donate her bodily resources so that you or I may live.
This has nothing at all to do with Roe, and everything to do with the LEGAL FACT forced donation of one's bodily resources to another does not exist in our law, not for you, not for me and not for ZEFs.

reply from: fetalisa

No you haven't. It is LEGAL FACT that if you need my kidney and will die without it, you can not have it without my CONSENT.
Then why can't you LEGALLY take my kidney without my CONSENT, even if you will die without it?
No it doesn't, which is why you can't forcibly remove my kidney simply because you will die without it. You have no legal rights whatsoever to ANY of my bodily resources without my CONSENT. You can't have so much as a single drop of blood from my body without my CONSENT, even if you will die without it.
There is no existing law which provides forced donation of one's bodily resources to insure survival of another. If you CAN point to such a law, then you will have proven the point you have yet to prove.

reply from: fetalisa

OK, how about 'your right to life STOPS at the point where my rights to bodily autonomy begins."
If abortion causes no harm and is actually beneficial to society, no ethical justification is necessary.
If you and I get in a car accident, and you get ticketed because it was your fault, and the accident damages both of my kidneys, do I have a LEGAL RIGHT to forcibly use or take your kidney, because you caused the accident? Does your right of bodily autonomy magically disappear because the accident was totally your fault and you caused it?
What is ethical is NO ONE BUT ME gets to decide IF I will donate ANY of my bodily resources to insure the survival of another.
Yes it does. Pregnancy demands a woman donate the ENTIRETY of her bodily resources for a period of nine months to insure the survival of another. Pregnancy has effects on her body, can even kill her if we check maternal death rates, and additionally incurs health care COSTS she will have to pay, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cost to raise that child to adulthood.
This is no different than in the case where you caused the car accident. Let's assume I could live and my kidneys could be healed if I were to be hooked up to your body for a 9 month time period. Do I have the LEGAL RIGHT TO FORCE YOU to allow me to remain hooked up to your body so that I may live, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU CAUSED THE ACCIDENT?
Yes or No?

reply from: nancyu

Please?..Don't you want my money? It's for the children. She is vile. She has no redeeming qualities. Can't we silence the opinions we don't like? Blasted Bill of Rights!

reply from: Shenanigans

As Pro-Lifers we all know what it means to have our voices silenced or attempted to be silenced.
We should not desire the same treatment for anyone, including our opponents.

reply from: saucie

That slime tries to post personal information. There's a huge difference between silencing someone's opinion and trying to post personal info.
Our personal info/privacy should be protected.
She isn't trying to say anything of value by posting Nancy's info from FB.
She should be banned for that move.

reply from: faithman

As Pro-Lifers we all know what it means to have our voices silenced or attempted to be silenced.
We should not desire the same treatment for anyone, including our opponents.
we should not desire to have the voice of baby killers silenced? What absolute foolishness!!! They should have someone reach down their blood thirsty demonic throats, and have their pro-death tounges ripped from their sculls, never to spew their hate for the womb child ever again. The thin air in your ivory tower has obviously robbed you of enough oxigen to think straight. We owe bortheads nothing except leather products. A boot in the butt and a belt in the mouth. Posting others personal info is supposed to be one of the few things that will get you banned. That needs to happen.

reply from: faithman

Shut up scanc. No one asked you.

reply from: MC3

To the Pro-Lifers Here:
The reason I do not ban these baby-killers from the forum has nothing to do with censorship or my unwillingness to "silence their voices." Truth be known, I would much prefer to live the rest of my life without ever hearing or reading one more word from them. In fact, every time I have to deal with them I feel like I need a thorough delousing.
But I remain convinced that the pro-life movement is profited by having them here regurgitating their irrational and mindless rhetoric. By learning their tactics and strategies in this small-risk environment, we develop the skills to expose and defeat them in the public. In effect, what goes on here is a sparring match in preparation for the fights that matter.
Now, for those of you who still want me to ban the pro-choice mob, be assured that I sympathize with your feelings. However, you can stop tying to convince me to send these people packing on the basis that they are a repugnant collection of cowards, barbarians and moral defectives. I already know that. Instead, convince me that our cause would be better served if they were banned from the forum. If you could sell me on that (and at some level I wish you could), the whole filthy lot of them ... Darkmoon, Rosalie, Fetalisa, Spinwiddy, QueenJ, joueravecfou, Cracrat, Cecilia, and all their fellow travelers would be gone in a blur.
In the mean time, I will repeat what I've said before. You fight the enemy where you find them and, sometimes, we find ours here.

reply from: saucie

You actually think there is an excuse for you...
You have no class...none.
Hopefully Mark will ban you for doing this, you have no right. You've only done it out of spite.
You are such a low life...really.
You make scum look good you piece of feces.

reply from: saucie

Posting private info, out of spite, doesn't warrant at least the removal of that link?

reply from: MC3

I am not aware of Spinwiddy posting personal information about one of the other people on the PLA Forum. I would appreciate it if one of you could please point it out to me.

reply from: faithman

MC3 has a point here. I have often said that "pro-life" needs to grow a thicker skin. We need to realize this is not a debate, but a battle for the lives of womb children. This world is not "nice", and it is a fatal error to think we can "reason" with the likes of the scum bag borthead scancs. This forum most assuredly does the whole movement a great service. It is one of the few, if not the only forum on the net where we are allowed to be brutally honest with these monsters. If we want to post without borthead influence, we can go to our private threads. But this is one of the major problems with this issue. We recoil [and rightly so] at the heartlessness of borthead scum. But we must not allow our revulsion to them to keep us out of the fight. We get the core of the abortion movement here. The PR is striped away for all the world to see who they truely are. But the posting of personal info is one of the few things that gets you booted. MC3 is right. As sickening as these punks are, they do a service here by exposing the pro-deathers for what they are. This helps us win the marginal pro-aborts into our fold. Just like the lady who quit PP in Bryan Texas when she was shown how evil PP really is behind the PR.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7715&enterthread=y
Fifth post down.

reply from: MC3

Spinwiddy:
In defending yourself against having posted personal information about NancyU, you said you did it because, "I figured she wasn't that sensitive about it..."
It goes without saying that this was not your decision to make. I have no doubt that you would be squealing like a pig caught under a gate if someone did this to you. And rightly so.
As despicable an individual as you are, you know that not only have I always defended your right to be here but I have defended it against people who are loyal friends of mine. But this time, you purposely choose to cross the line. The fact is, you have been here long enough and often enough to know that we strongly discourage people from posting personal information about themselves and won't tolerate people doing it to others.
In short, I don't know how we are going to get along without you but we're about to find out.
Meanwhile, to my fellow pro-lifers:
Am I correct that there was some mention of multi-million dollar donations pouring into Life Dynamics if the Spinwiddy era were to suddenly come to an end? I know I'm getting old and possibly a little senile, but for some reason that thought just keeps running through my head.

reply from: nancyu

Wooooooooooohoooooooooo!!!!!!
The check is on its way my friend!!
(bribery and extortion -- you've gotta love it!)

reply from: faithman

Thanks MC3. Only wish you know who was here. He would have had great joy in seeing spit wad get it's just deserts. I am just curious to see how this scanc comes back.

reply from: MC3

NancyU:
There are three important matters which we need to straighten out.
First, I feel compelled to address your "bribery and extortion" remark. Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not tolerate bribery in the general sense but only in those instances in which I am the "bribee."
Second, your assurance that, "The check is on its way" sounds uncomfortably similar to, "The check is in the mail." Given the sordid history behind that statement, I think you can understand why I harbor some skepticism about this arrangement.
Third, if your bribe, I mean CONTRIBUTION, is to be in excess of one million big ones - as you assured me it would be - in lieu of a check or some sort of burdensome wire transfer deal, I suggest that you meet me at 3AM in the abandoned warehouse behind Gauchman's scrap metal salvage yard on the north side of Ft. Worth.
Come alone and bring old bills.

reply from: faithman

The little death scanc returns.

reply from: faithman

She better make part of the loot quarters in a sock. Gets ruff in them woods.

reply from: faithman

Gotcha.
Don't forget quarters in a sock. The northside of Ft Worth is pretty bad news. On second thought, a 10 gage shot gun would better serve.

reply from: Banned Member

Nope! I'm a different banned member
Spinwiddy or Vexing?

reply from: Banned Member

AND the Yankees win the World Series. It's a beautiful day!

reply from: Shenanigans

Wow. You must have /\/\@D h@c70R $ki77Z to get back on the forum if you've been banned!

reply from: MC3

She has indeed been banned but we are having a technical problem with the forum. It should be taken care of shortly.

reply from: saucie

Thank you for caring about our privacy concerns. It's greatly appreciated.

reply from: MC3

Technical problem solved.
Spinwiddy nuked.
Send cash and lots of it.

reply from: faithman

CCCCCCCAAAAAAAABBBBBBLLLLLLLOOOOOWWWWEEEE. Oh no!!!!! [mushroom cloud]. GLOW IN THE DARK SPIT WAD FALL OUT ALERT. Expect a rash of borthead trolls!!

reply from: faithman

Finally catching on!!! good For you.

reply from: speck

MC3 I'm curious as to what you deem as personal information gone too far.
For example, if someone asked to not have their real first name used. would this be a breach of privacy? Even though it is just the first name, but having someone state to not do so?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics