Ben Carson has one of the best arguments RE abortion...

[Delmar]

But it's just fine and dandy if the child she bears is born into abject poverty, hunger,malnutrition , poor, unsanitary housing , leck of medical care and good education ? This is why women have abortions .
Right to life ? What about the right to decent food, shelter, medical care and education ? And what about the rights of babies who grow up to be gay ? If you're opposed to abortion but want babies who grow up to be gay to be denied rights, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind .

You are a disgusting excuse for a person

 

[PureX]

If anyone confuses the gift of grace with a merit system the problem isn't the belief system but their approach to it.

No, the problem is in how they interpret a text. Which is why it's a problem to have a religion based on a book.

I wrote: by asserting this claim [elitism] against the larger claims of the majority you set yourself in an exclusive and superior position.

This is silly nonsense. But I understand that you need to hold onto it because you need to find a way to dismiss my accusations.

That wouldn't make you immune, only a hypocrite and that would relieve you of the authority of your objection.

Everyone is a hypocrite. That's already been established. The only question is in what way. Most American conservative Christians are hypocrites about their claims of reverence for human life. You don't want to face that hypocrisy, and so you're trying desperately to find some way of dismissing the accusation. Hence, all these silly attempts at 'turning the table' and accusing the accuser.

Or maybe it's my old burning field problem. Seventy seven percent of the U.S. population lay claim to the Christian religion. There are over three hundred million people in the United States. So around two hundred and thirty million people and you've likely met or seen how many of those?

The non-conservative Christians that aren't this kind of hypocrite aren't relevant to a discussion about the ones that are. Again, your desperately seeking some rabbit hole to fall into to avoid confronting the real issue. Your responses just get longer and longer while you never actually address the fact of how religious Christian elitism leads to a presumption of superiority, which leads to division and disdain toward humanity. Not 'reverence', as is so often claimed in these abortion debates.

re: on comparing Christians to Nazis

Let me go back then...

Okay, a slight qualification, you compared them to facilitators of the Nazis. So not the actual butchers, but the people who fed them, housed them, did their dry cleaning and generally made their existence possible.

It's a thin distinction.

Still chasing after rabbit holes.

Lots of nazis and their supporters were Christians. Just as lots of pedophile priests were and are Christians. As were the raping and pillaging Crusaders. And the bloodthirsty witch-hunters. And the murdering klansmen. There are no perfect Christians. And the imperfect ones that there are do not deserve your constant and unconditional defense. They deserve to be called out on their bigotry, their hate, and their complicity in the atrocities of the world. And it's a legitimate question to ask how they manage to reconcile their ideas and behaviors with the Christian religion. Because there are obviously flaws in it that allow this sort of thing to occur. Religious ideology is neither perfect nor sacred. And treating is as if it is just allows the flaws to fester.

Okay, I disagree. I think that what you do is ultimately make whatever "nice" is valueless.

Nice is mostly valueless if it fails when it's tested. And it fails to test itself.

A decent human being doesn't facilitate genocide. Why? because by definition a "decent" human being is one who is "conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior."

Decent human beings do it all the time. They just tell themselves their doing something else. Or their doing the best they can in an otherwise evil world.

The Nazi state didn't do that, which is why no one attempting to hide from responsibility for atrocities behind the facade of legality within the German system had any luck doing it.

Almost every German knew what was happening, fascist and Christian alike. Legal sophistry doesn't change that. Many good Christians in our own government knew, and ignored it, too.

When the nation is prosperous, as it has been in fairly recent times, the population is largely happy and there is a plenty that floats a great many of those boats you're considering with enough surplus to help those who through no fault of their own don't find a measure of prosperity.

When a $100 has to go to the wealthy man before a dime can go to the poor man (and still the wealthy man wants more), the system is doomed. Even a mathematical moron could see that. And yet this is the system we have, and the system most conservative American Christians defend. Capitalism is a system that rewards wealth. Not work, not talent, not generosity, not virtue; just wealth. It puts all the control in the hands of the capital investor, regardless of how he got the capital, or what he intends to do with it.

Why are you defending the Christians who defend this? Could it be because you believe in the divine nature of the "winners and losers" view of humanity as they do?

I've noted a few problems I find in the system, but the important part of our disagreement here is your seeming assertion that because the system has serious flaws the response to it should be abandonment.

No, my assertion is that Christians should not be supporting those flaws and then proclaiming their mighty sacred reverence for humanity.

But my point was that the starting point of dehumanization is typically the sort of hostility you're evidencing toward the majority (when you think to separate them) of Christians. To you they're complicit in moral evil.

We're ALL complicit in moral evil! The difference is that conservative religious Christians use their religion to excuse themselves and to hide from their own complicity, all the while abetting it. Pretending to themselves that they aren't the 'bad guys' while they slander and denigrate those who would dare to seek a better and more just, equitable way of doing things.

That's the sickness of conservatism, multiplied by the self-righteousness of religion. It's the cancer that's growing in your church, and that's driving others away from it, but that you keep trying to defend away, instead of addressing directly.

And what do we do about those who are complicit in moral evil and working a harm against the decent, suffering populace?

First we have to see them for what they are. And then we have to see how we are a part of the sickness. So that we can begin to STOP being a part of it.

Better to advance the good you see and the way toward it.

No, better to call the problem a problem. And then look for the cause, then find the solution.

Or, everyone wants to change the world one person at a time and that person is always someone else.

It's so much easier to see the flaws of others, than our own. Which is why a wise man doesn't have to auto-defend, and considers my criticism a gift.

 

[shagster01]

Ben Carson makes a good point in his book RE abortion and the woman having all rights to do as she chooses, the child having NONE.

I am paraphrasing what he said but soemthing to the effect that just b/c the baby lives in her womb, thereby conferring on her a form of "ownership"-- for lack of a better word-- that does not mean she has all power over that child's life

(This is said to those who do not honor LIFE itself... or put LIFE after some other rght in their hierarchy of values, eg: "choice," [the woman's choice, of course])

Carson says that just owning a dog does not give you the right to torture and kill it

(how much more so a human being created in God's image)



"Whatever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me"




Jesus said





+

If the only why I could live was to have an umbilical cord hooked to you, should you be forced to abide for my right to life?

Or if I needed one of your kidneys to live, should you be forced to give of your body for my right to life?

 

[Town Heretic]

Since most of this is simply contextual and irreconcilable difference and I've answered as fully as I can on capitalism, a few points in brief...

I wrote: by asserting this claim [elitism] against the larger claims of the majority you set yourself in an exclusive and superior position.

This is silly nonsense

No, it's a rational counter you can't or won't answer.

Everyone is a hypocrite.

Too broad. Everyone can be. But at some point all you do by broadening is make the term meaningless. If everyone is the same height tall and short, as they relate to people, don't amount to much.

Most American conservative Christians are hypocrites about their claims of reverence for human life.

You can't remotely begin to sustain that declaration with anything like objective data.

You don't want to face that hypocrisy, and so you're trying desperately to find some way of dismissing the accusation.

I'm not desperate and I'm not trying to do much more than meet hyperbole and the hostility you hold too broadly for a portion of my brethren and I'm doing it with a measured rebuttal.

Hence, all these silly attempts at 'turning the table' and accusing the accuser.

No, the reason I turn tables is to show you the problems I'm finding with your assertions and method.

Again, your desperately seeking some rabbit hole to fall into to avoid confronting the real issue.

Again, I'm neither desperate nor seeking to use anything but a frank and objective response, mostly regarding people I frequently differ with in conclusion and method.

Your responses just get longer and longer while you never actually address the fact of how religious Christian elitism leads to a presumption of superiority, which leads to division and disdain toward humanity.

The length of my responses has to do with what I see as a sufficient answer. And given I think your charge about elitism is an errant one on the whole I've responded to that at every point.

Lots of nazis and their supporters were Christians.

Sure. Before Hitler even persecuting the Jews was a Western pastime. Racism, when empowered, rarely ends well.

Just as lots of pedophile priests were and are Christians. As were the raping and pillaging Crusaders.

Sure. And raping and pillaging atheists under Stalin and raping and pillaging anyone under nearly any flag.

The Bible deals with that too.

There are no perfect Christians.

Of course not. If we were perfect the cross would be superfluous.

And the imperfect ones that there are do not deserve your constant and unconditional defense.

You set that charge before. It's still wrong headed. I've been at loggerheads with my right wing Christian brethren often enough over everything from legal rights to religious freedom for non Christians to the treatment of others within and outside of the Body.

You won't find a single right wing Christian who would agree with your characterization of my part around here.

They deserve to be called out on their bigotry, their hate, and their complicity in the atrocities of the world.

Anyone who is complicit in atrocities of the world should be called out on it, but being a conservative Christian isn't being that inherently.

Almost every German knew what was happening, fascist and Christian alike.

I don't know if that's true, but those who knew and profited by it will answer for it.

Legal sophistry doesn't change that.

That was my point.

Many good Christians in our own government knew, and ignored it, too.

You have a peculiar definition for "good Christians" then. Maybe that's the problem.

When a $100 has to go to the wealthy man before a dime can go to the poor man (and still the wealthy man wants more), the system is doomed.

Depends on the standard of living and what that dime buys.

Capitalism is a system that rewards wealth. Not work, not talent, not generosity, not virtue; just wealth.

The logical problem with that is: Bill Gates. How did he get that wealth of his, inheritance? You want a laundry list of impoverished men and women who used the system to gain wealth?

Why are you defending the Christians who defend this? Could it be because you believe in the divine nature of the "winners and losers" view of humanity as they do?

Because I don't think you have a better answer and I think we're still at a point where we can ungame a system that works better than any other.

Pretending to themselves that they aren't the 'bad guys' while they slander and denigrate those who would dare to seek a better and more just, equitable way of doing things.

I'm guessing you see yourself in that denigrated group.

It's the cancer that's growing in your church, and that's driving others away from it, but that you keep trying to defend away, instead of addressing directly.

I don't think that demonstrates an accurate assessment of either.

It's so much easier to see the flaws of others, than our own.

If I could see that evidenced in your address here I would be content.

Which is why a wise man doesn't have to auto-defend, and considers my criticism a gift.

:chuckle: There may be hope for you yet.

 

[aikido7]

You are a disgusting excuse for a person

Congratulations, he said sarcastically.

You have now reached the point where you have been able to push your God-given human empathy and understanding totally out of the picture.

It's so much easier in life if we do not have to consider the lives and struggles of others, isn't it?

 

[PureX]

Most American conservative Christians are hypocrites about their claims of reverence for human life.

You can't remotely begin to sustain that declaration with anything like objective data.

Who needs data?

American conservative Christians:

- support capital punishment, not just for murderers, but for rapists, pedophiles, and in some cases even thieves.
- support the proliferation of deadly weapons regardless of the consequences.
- support the use of deadly force to protect property.
- support the elimination of most or all forms of public aid.
- oppose national health care systems of any kind.
- oppose equal rights.
- oppose environmental protections.
- oppose unions and the protection of worker's rights.
- oppose most/all public health and safety regulations.

… These are not the positions of 'humanitarians'.

… Depends on the standard of living and what that dime buys.

It buys exactly 1,000 times less of everything a human being needs to live than the C-note does. There is no "depends" about it. But is the rich man 1,000 times more worthy of his wealth? Is he 1,000 times more valuable to society? Is he 1,000 times smarter, or kinder, or wiser? Is he 1,000 times more honest. Is he 1,000 times more of ANYTHING that might justify his getting 1,000 time more of the resources and opportunities that come with the wealth?

Of course not. Yet with every dollar he gains, he also gains power and influence and with it the ability to control the lives of others. While the poor man has neither wealth, opportunity, or political access. All of which greatly determine the quality of his life, AND limit his contribution to the lives of others.

The logical problem with that is: Bill Gates. How did he get that wealth of his, inheritance? You want a laundry list of impoverished men and women who used the system to gain wealth?

Gates' story is one in a billion. But somehow you think he stands as evidence that the other 999,999,999 just didn't try hard enough? Or that they were somehow 999,999,999 times lesser human beings than Bill Gates?

Because I don't think you have a better answer and I think we're still at a point where we can ungame a system that works better than any other.

"Works" at what? Is all this consumer junk and exploitation in the pursuit if greed really making any of us happier? Is it making us better human beings? Is it even justifying our existence? Cause I'm not seeing it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Who needs data?

You do, to sustain your claim. Though your premise is errant anyway. Christians reverence God. They defend innocent life. You can laundry list until your fingers fly off but until you can connect it to the numbers you're just spinning rhetorical wheels.

It buys exactly 1,000 times less of everything a human being needs to live than the C-note does.

Citation sustaining the degree of difference?

There is no "depends" about it. But is the rich man 1,000 times more worthy of his wealth? Is he 1,000 times more valuable to society? Is he 1,000 times smarter, or kinder, or wiser? Is he 1,000 times more honest. Is he 1,000 times more of ANYTHING that might justify his getting 1,000 time more of the resources and opportunities that come with the wealth?

Sure. If you produce one thousand times the wealth.

Gates' story is one in a billion.

Source or are you just making that up? But what Gate's story is would be an illustration that the gateway to upward mobility remains open.

But somehow you think he stands as evidence that the other 999,999,999 just didn't try hard enough?

Rejecting the number as hyperbole aimed at tainting the point, the point remains.

Or that they were somehow 999,999,999 times lesser human beings than Bill Gates?

Lesser? You think money determines your real worth?

"Works" at what?

At providing a higher standard of living than anything in the history of man has ever managed.

Is all this consumer junk and exploitation in the pursuit if greed really making any of us happier?

We're responsible for what we value, but the last time I read a study on happiness the rich weren't really the possessors of it and wealth wasn't necessary for it. A comfortable living was, but returns beyond it were surprisingly slim.

Is it making us better human beings?

How can a relativist believe in better human beings? Better by whose standard?

 

[PureX]

You do, to sustain your claim.

Not really. You, me, and everyone else here knows this is a list of America's conservative Christian's favorite social and political issues:

- support capital punishment, not just for murderers, but for rapists, pedophiles, and in some cases even thieves.
- support the proliferation of deadly weapons regardless of the consequences.
- support the use of deadly force to protect property.
- support the elimination of most or all forms of public aid.
- oppose national health care systems of any kind.
- oppose equal rights.
- oppose environmental protections.
- oppose unions and the protection of worker's rights.
- oppose most/all public health and safety regulations.

Your silly insistence on supporting data was just the only weak response you could come up with, here, I realize. But not even you can claim one of these positions is not overwhelmingly endemic of the American conservative Christian attitude. And not even you can spin these positions as being particularly reverent of human life.

Though your premise is errant anyway. Christians reverence God. They defend innocent life.

Oh! I see! It's INNOCENT life they revere, now. Well, that would explain why the only humans they revere are the ones that don't yet exist. But of course that's not a reverence for a human life, it's only a reverence for a prospective human life. A life that's still "innocent". An imaginary human being that has not actually manifested, yet. A human being that they will no longer revere the moment he/she becomes a reality in their world, tainted with 'original sin'.

Ah yes, the fantasy of "innocence" in the mind of Christians who believe everyone is born guilty. How does that work? Is original sin like an airborne contagion? That the moment the baby hits daylight it becomes covered with the guilt of it's original sin? Yet while still in the womb, it remains "innocent"?

You can laundry list until your fingers fly off but until you can connect it to the numbers you're just spinning rhetorical wheels.

That's a pathetic excuse for a response, TH, even from a lawyer. Which item on that list do you propose are NOT an overwhelmingly common position among American conservative Christians?

Citation sustaining the degree of difference?

Well, ahhh …, mathematics? Ten cents is pretty clearly 1/1,000th of 100 dollars. So that the purchasing power of a dime would be 1/1,000th the purchasing power of a C-note. And since we have to purchase nearly everything we need to live in a modern inter-dependent society, purchasing power very much determines one's quality of life. Even ones ability to live, at all.

What part of this is confusing you, that you need further "citations"?

Sure. If you produce one thousand times the wealth.

How is it humanly possible for one person to out-produce another by 1,000 times? The differences between humans is just not that great. Do you really believe that Bill Gates worked thousands of times harder, or faster, or more efficiently than everyone else? Or do you think he was just an average guy in the right place at the right time in an economy that rewards those who enable massive profits on capital investment?

Source or are you just making that up? But what Gate's story is would be an illustration that the gateway to upward mobility remains open.

Put a billion mosquitos in box, and poke one tiny hole somewhere in the box, and a few mosquitoes will find the hole and escape the box. Does that mean every mosquito is free to leave the box? Does that mean those few mosquitos that escape are a millions of times smarter than all those who do not?

Yet this is the absurdity of saying that because Bill Gate became a billionaire, anyone can become a billionaire.

… the point remains.

Your "point" is both absurd and dishonest.

You think money determines your real worth?

Yes, I do. Because no matter how smart, kind, wise, hard-working and virtuous a man may be, without money to enable these gifts, they will mostly be wasted. Because in our society, money = opportunity, and influence, and the ability to effect other people's lives. Which is where real value is determined.

At providing a higher standard of living than anything in the history of man has ever managed.

You mean we can own more junk. And yet we don't seem to be particularly better off for it. I would think a Christian would see this before most people would.

We're responsible for what we value, but the last time I read a study on happiness the rich weren't really the possessors of it and wealth wasn't necessary for it. A comfortable living was, but returns beyond it were surprisingly slim.

"A comfortable living" is important. Not having to worry about tomorrow, today, makes today a lot better day. And yet in an economy and culture based on the Darwinism of wealth and greed rather than on the well-being of humanity, we have to worry more and more about what will happen tomorrow, today. And we are becoming more and more mean-spirited and unhappy as a result.

 

[bybee]

How many people have benefited from the work of Bill gates?

 

[gcthomas]

How many people have benefited from the work of Bill gates?

About as many who would have benefited from the work of others who would have done similar work had Bill Gates got a job in a bank instead of building computers. Bill had no unique insight, he just did exactly the right thing at the right time to beat the competitors, who would have employed the real power of Microsoft, Wosniak, themselves.

 

[Town Heretic]

Not really.

Yeah, you do. Otherwise it's just you declaring your bias as the truth. Do some do this or that on your list? Of course. In what numbers? It's important. Is some of that list contextually assumptive? It is.

- support capital punishment, not just for murderers, but for rapists, pedophiles, and in some cases even thieves.

I don't think you have to be a right winger to support capital punishment. I don't agree with it, but I know people who do across the spectrum. I don't know anyone who believes in putting people to death for stealing. I know a great many people who believe in CP for murder who would object on rape (many of those because it encourages murder among rapists). So you lump too much even at the outset.

- support the proliferation of deadly weapons regardless of the consequences.

See, there's your bias running off the rails. I don't believe that anyone would agree with that statement as set out. "Regardless of the consequences" makes it irrational prima facie. You can support the right to bear arms (especially the Koala) without believing we should arm bears indiscriminately or without regard for the forest. Flintlocks, by way of example, would be a very poor thing to allow, especially in dry tinder.

Well, if you're going to be absurd you invite a bit of it, don't you?

- support the use of deadly force to protect property.

Unless they're mind readers property can become a personal threat issue. Or do you mean, honestly mean to suggest most right wing Christians would support shooting someone running away in the back?

- support the elimination of most or all forms of public aid.

I don't believe it and you won't establish it. I think most conservatives favor workfare and training to get someone on their feet and a part of the contributing class. The objection is to programs that by their nature encourage indolence.

- oppose national health care systems of any kind.

You mean a government run or socialized bit of medicine? Because we've had a health care system for generations. We're mostly arguing over how to fix it.

- oppose equal rights.

For? Because as a blanket statement it's logically problematic. Just say gays if you mean gays. And that's partly a generational distinction and one in flux. This link might interest you. It has actual data and some of it you might even use.

The rest of the list is too sweeping and lump summing.

Your silly insistence on supporting data was just the only weak response you could come up with, here, I realize.

When anyone tries to link a call for empirical proof relating to an essentially empirical claim with an argumentative weakness, they've crossed over into the land of zealot and irrationality.

But not even you can claim one of these positions is not overwhelmingly endemic of the American conservative Christian attitude.

I'm not in the declare the unsupported truth game. My gut on it? You're mostly overblown and wrong headed, mistaken by your bias and whatever is at the root of it. But I'm open to good data.

And not even you can spin these positions as being particularly reverent of human life.

I don't have an interest in spinning, only understanding and answering as reasonably as I can on a general and to my mind emotionally blinding bias you seem caught up in.

Oh! I see! It's INNOCENT life they revere, now.

No, you don't see because that's still not what I said. And it isn't "now" it's period. Revere God, protect the innocent. Christians don't worship at the alter of life, but of the originator of it.

But of course that's not a reverence for a human life, it's only a reverence for a prospective human life.

No, it's a reverence for God and a protection of the innocent. I know it's not what you want to hear, because it's going to be hard for you to cast it in that light you love, but that's the way of it.

A life that's still "innocent".

Right. Like most rational people they distinguish between a serial killer and a fireman. lain:

An imaginary human being that has not actually manifested, yet.

No, just a human being who hasn't hit a particular milestone that opens your eyes to its right and existence, apparently.

Ah yes, the fantasy of "innocence"

It isn't a fantasy, but there's no profit in speaking to it with someone in your position (rejecting both the context, subjectively and disdaining empirical and objective data in the formation of conclusions, supra) and it's off the point of your initial irrationality.

That's a pathetic excuse for a response, TH, even from a lawyer.

You're a lawyer? Because that was you talking just then, not me.

Which item on that list do you propose are NOT an overwhelmingly common position among American conservative Christians?

Your list is a horrible jumble of over reaching combined with errant bits of conclusion and non of it supported by more than your general outrage and gall...I don't propose to speak for numbers I don't have against accusations you can't support beyond leveling them.

Well, ahhh …, mathematics? Ten cents is pretty clearly 1/1,000th of 100 dollars.

I thought you were being symbolic, not stupid, or I would have said, "That's not reflective, give me something rational to work with that's in the ball park."

So that the purchasing power of a dime would be 1/1,000th the purchasing power of a C-note.

That's better, but it still needs a base in power. So I can live on X and a man whose product or company employs me has Y times that X and gets, by virtue of that idea and/or risk a much greater return?

Sure. And a much greater loss if it doesn't go well for him. While I can get another job with another risk taker.

What part of this is confusing you, that you need further "citations"? How is it humanly possible for one person to out-produce another by 1,000 times?

I'm not confused and you've created a false comparison. It's not about the fellow who can produce the most widgets deserving the most reward, except among the competing widget making employees.

The differences between humans is just not that great. Do you really believe that Bill Gates worked thousands of times harder, or faster, or more efficiently than everyone else?

No, I think he had an idea that allowed thousands of people who might have fared much worse find differing levels of gainful employment and reward.

Or do you think he was just an average guy in the right place at the right time in an economy that rewards those who enable massive profits on capital investment?

Of course not.

Yet this is the absurdity of saying that because Bill Gate became a billionaire, anyone can become a billionaire.

No, it's noting that the system rewards ideas and that anyone who can have them is in a position to do great things.

Your "point" is both absurd and dishonest.

It's neither. Your attempt, as I noted above, was mistaken in its contextual comparison.

 

[republicanchick]

If the only why I could live was to have an umbilical cord hooked to you, should you be forced to abide for my right to life?

Or if I needed one of your kidneys to live, should you be forced to give of your body for my right to life?

can't answer this b/c something else has 2b resolved first

namely the issue of how the pregnant woman INVITED the child into her womb...

I guess u dont have a problem with the following scenario:

someone invites you over. You have no other place to live and this is a relative, so you go where u r invited

Then the relative says GET OUT

and you can't leave so the relative tortures and kills you

because you " had no right to be there"




++

 

[quip]

can't answer this b/c something else has 2b resolved first

namely the issue of how the pregnant woman INVITED the child into her womb...

I guess u dont have a problem with the following scenario:

someone invites you over. You have no other place to live and this is a relative, so you go where u r invited

Then the relative says GET OUT

and you can't leave so the relative tortures and kills you

because you " had no right to be there"


++

Or rather, you show up to my party by-passing any RSVPs, refuse to leave thus are subsequently removed from the premises whilst death incurs as a natural conseqence of your removal.

 

[republicanchick]

Or rather, you show up to my party by-passing any RSVPs, refuse to leave thus are subsequently removed from the premises whilst death incurs as a natural conseqence of your removal.

yeh, those unborn babies... it's just HORRIBLE... so RUDE

that they refuse to leave...

Moron City


+++

 

[quip]

yeh, those unborn babies... it's just HORRIBLE... so RUDE

that they refuse to leave...

Moron City


+++

No capacity to self-remove.....refuse to leave. :idunno:

Pick one?

 

[gcthomas]

No capacity to self-remove.....refuse to leave. :idunno:

Pick one?

No capacity at all. Very un-person-like really. Wouldn't want something that couldn't hold it's end of a conversation as a sitting tennant with no right to remove it.

 

[republicanchick]

You are a disgusting excuse for a person

LOL


my thoughts were not altogether different...


++