Bush supporting Anit-Abortion

[tigeraholic]

I am glad to see he stands together with the Anti-Abortion Movement (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/bush.abortion.ap/)

[kingmob]

whatever.......then why does he apoint abortion proponets to his staff?....like alberto"i love torture" gonzalez? who in texas thought it was a great idea for 12 year olds to get abortions without parental consent?

[tigeraholic]

from the article:

This year there is increasing speculation about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's health. Three other justices have had cancer.
One or more court vacancies would give President Bush the chance to install another justice or justices who oppose the Roe decision, increasing the likelihood that at some point, the ruling could be overturned.

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
I am glad to see he stands together with the Anti-Abortion Movement (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/bush.abortion.ap/)

Abortion should be regulated so that its not used by whor es as a contraceptive, but it should still be an option as a last resort. I think if every woman was given a one abortion limit per life, people would quickly clean up their act, but thats against a free society. I find that I'm becoming more and more pro-states rights, and let the states decide for themselves on things like gay marriage, abortion, and hot button religious right issues.

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
from the article:

This year there is increasing speculation about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's health. Three other justices have had cancer.
One or more court vacancies would give President Bush the chance to install another justice or justices who oppose the Roe decision, increasing the likelihood that at some point, the ruling could be overturned.

they will never make abortion illegal......it fits there agenda to have abortions on demand

[kingmob]

there is no more states rights that was cleared up during the southern reconstruction after the norths war of aggression on the south

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
there is no more states rights that was cleared up during the southern reconstruction after the norths war of aggression on the south

Norths war of aggresion huh???

[williethebasset]

No, it was Southern aggression by attacking Fort Sumter, and secdeing from the union.

[boomboom]

Originally posted by williethebasset
I find that I'm becoming more and more pro-states rights, and let the states decide for themselves on things like gay marriage, abortion, and hot button religious right issues.

Same here, I dont think that the federal government should have an imput on social issues.

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
Norths war of aggresion huh???

thats what it was

[kingmob]

Originally posted by williethebasset
No, it was Southern aggression by attacking Fort Sumter, and secdeing from the union.

its called demanding states rights.....before the civil war all the states were like there own countries.......

[kingmob]

Originally posted by boomboom
Same here, I dont think that the federal government should have an imput on social issues.

the federal govt. wants to put microchips in us and scan us like toasters at slave-mart.....they want to control EVERY aspect of our lives

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
its called demanding states rights.....before the civil war all the states were like there own countries.......


So you believe in slavery???

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
So you believe in slavery???

I believe in states rights too. If states want to make stupid mistakes, let them do it, not the federal government won't be there to bail them out.

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by williethebasset
I believe in states rights too. If states want to make stupid mistakes, let them do it, not the federal government won't be there to bail them out.

So slavery was a stupid mistake but no one outside that state should have tried to stop it?? LOL that has got to be one of the dumbest statements I have ever read... :rolleyes:

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
So you believe in slavery???

you are so predictible .....all you do is spout the drivel you learned in your govt. sponsored history class......the north won so they wrote the history books.....its very subjective.....the reason the south suceeded was due to the increase in tariffs from abroad.....the south bought most of there goods from england and the northern industrialists were pissed because the south wasnt buying there overpriced goods since they could import them cheaper.......so what did the northern oligarchs do....they raised tariffs so the south couldnt get goods cheaper....so they suceeded from the union.......most of the rank and file joe sixpack southerners didnt own slaves....just rich robber barons.....like the gore family in tennesse......slavery was the propaganda so the north could take the moral high ground
how and why abe started the civil war (http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/howwhyabestartedwar.htm)

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
you are so predictible .....all you do is spout the drivel you learned in your govt. sponsored history class......the north won so they wrote the history books.....its very subjective.....the reason the south suceeded was due to the increase in tariffs from abroad.....the south bought most of there goods from england and the northern industrialists were pissed because the south wasnt buying there overpriced goods since they could import them cheaper.......so what did the northern oligarchs do....they raised tariffs so the south couldnt get goods cheaper....so they suceeded from the union.......most of the rank and file joe sixpack southerners didnt own slaves....just rich robber barons.....like the gore family in tennesse......slavery was the propaganda so the north could take the moral high ground
how and why abe started the civil war (http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/howwhyabestartedwar.htm)


Yah ok believe what you want but here is the truth sorry the truth is so predictable...:rolleyes: South strikes first while north was trying to prevent spread of slavery (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4narr5.html)

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
Yah ok believe what you want but here is the truth sorry the truth is so predictable...:rolleyes: South strikes first while north was trying to prevent spread of slavery (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4narr5.html)

ok john brown abolitionist movement were northerners that attacked the south because they were abolitionists.......like i said before most southerners were not slave holders......only the rich land barrons.......this was propaganda to cook up a war.....you just agreed with me........it was northern agression against the south....and it was due to tarriffs and states rights that this war happened.......it was about economic warfare mostly.....and the federal govt. flexing its muscle over the idea of states rights

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
ok john brown abolitionist movement were northerners that attacked the south because they were abolitionists.......like i said before most southerners were not slave holders......only the rich land barrons.......this was propaganda to cook up a war.....you just agreed with me........it was northern agression against the south....and it was due to tarriffs and states rights that this war happened.......it was about economic warfare mostly.....and the federal govt. flexing its muscle over the idea of states rights

No I do not agree with you did you even read the article??


In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who was committed to keeping slavery out of the new western territories, was elected president. Southerners saw this commitment as threat to their way of life, for they knew that to survive as an institution, slavery would need to expand into new lands. South Carolina seceded from the Union, followed by six more southern states by February 1861. When Lincoln delivered his inaugural address on March 4, 1861 to a nation divided, he was determined to maintain the Union, but he refused to make any concession to the South on the question of slavery. Lincoln did not make concessions to the abolitionists either. He stated that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Act. His intent was to stop slavery from spreading; in Lincoln's mind, this would be enough to kill it.


It is not states rights that was challenged the Federal Govt. was only activating laws while states were being created and the south began seceding from the Union because they new it would be the end of the spreading human trade. Beacuse most southeren states economy were budgeted by the slave business and if they could not control that with the new territories their whole infrastructure would crumble...

I guess your ignorant stance on this subject backs up Cartmans claims of your bigotry...

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by kingmob
you are so predictible .....all you do is spout the drivel you learned in your govt. sponsored history class......the north won so they wrote the history books.....its very subjective.....the reason the south suceeded was due to the increase in tariffs from abroad.....the south bought most of there goods from england and the northern industrialists were pissed because the south wasnt buying there overpriced goods since they could import them cheaper.......so what did the northern oligarchs do....they raised tariffs so the south couldnt get goods cheaper....so they suceeded from the union.......most of the rank and file joe sixpack southerners didnt own slaves....just rich robber barons.....like the gore family in tennesse......slavery was the propaganda so the north could take the moral high ground
how and why abe started the civil war (http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/howwhyabestartedwar.htm)

No, it is what Tigerholic is saying... The south saw Lincoln as a threat to slavery.

[williethebasset]

Something I cannot stand though, are the blacks in this country, like Jesse Jackson, that want reparations for slavery, I think 1 Million dead is enough for freedom.

[kingmob]

Originally posted by williethebasset
Something I cannot stand though, are the blacks in this country, like Jesse Jackson, that want reparations for slavery, I think 1 Million dead is enough for freedom.

jesse jackson is a sellout and a extortionist......he puts pressure of the black boycott on companies claining they are racist untill he gets a payout.......and ive heard some say that jackson was in on the the mlk(he was a great man) assasination.....jackson is a punk.....

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
No I do not agree with you did you even read the article??


In 1860, Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who was committed to keeping slavery out of the new western territories, was elected president. Southerners saw this commitment as threat to their way of life, for they knew that to survive as an institution, slavery would need to expand into new lands. South Carolina seceded from the Union, followed by six more southern states by February 1861. When Lincoln delivered his inaugural address on March 4, 1861 to a nation divided, he was determined to maintain the Union, but he refused to make any concession to the South on the question of slavery. Lincoln did not make concessions to the abolitionists either. He stated that he had no intention of ending slavery where it already existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Act. His intent was to stop slavery from spreading; in Lincoln's mind, this would be enough to kill it.


It is not states rights that was challenged the Federal Govt. was only activating laws while states were being created and the south began seceding from the Union because they new it would be the end of the spreading human trade. Beacuse most southeren states economy were budgeted by the slave business and if they could not control that with the new territories their whole infrastructure would crumble...

I guess your ignorant stance on this subject backs up Cartmans claims of your bigotry...

slavery was an issue.....granted and it wasnt the only issue......your stance is that if i dont agree that slavery was an issue then i must be for slavery and that im rascist?....thats BS....im not a rascist but what im saying is that the slavery issue was major propaganda the north used when the south was winning....early on in the war......
besides when lincoln proposed his enrollment act of conscription the irish immigrants who were slated for the draft revolted and lynched and murdered a bunch of blacks in ny.....so basicaly the north enslaved the irish to go fight for the release of southern blacks......and in the end the slaves got there freedom and we all became 14th admendment slaves......so whats your take on the enslavement of the irish?......they must of been a bunch of bigots too since they lynched blacks because they figured it was there fault that they were gonna become cannon fodder in lincoln's war of aggresion vs. the south......again most people in the south did not own slaves.....and more southerns than you think were against slavery.....
draft riots in ny 1863 (http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm)

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
slavery was an issue.....granted and it wasnt the only issue......your stance is that if i dont agree that slavery was an issue then i must be for slavery and that im rascist?....thats BS....im not a rascist but what im saying is that the slavery issue was major propaganda the north used when the south was winning....early on in the war......
besides when lincoln proposed his enrollment act of conscription the irish immigrants who were slated for the draft revolted and lynched and murdered a bunch of blacks in ny.....so basicaly the north enslaved the irish to go fight for the release of southern blacks......and in the end the slaves got there freedom and we all became 14th admendment slaves......so whats your take on the enslavement of the irish?......they must of been a bunch of bigots too since they lynched blacks because they figured it was there fault that they were gonna become cannon fodder in lincoln's war of aggresion vs. the south......again most people in the south did not own slaves.....and more southerns than you think were against slavery.....
draft riots in ny 1863 (http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm)


Once again you are spinning off the subject..:rolleyes: So what you say is true than you should be a mexican right?? Texas was taken away from Mexico and if you want to continue down this road the whole U.S. of A was stolen form the native americans so were are you going with this??

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
Once again you are spinning off the subject..:rolleyes: So what you say is true than you should be a mexican right?? Texas was taken away from Mexico and if you want to continue down this road the whole U.S. of A was stolen form the native americans so were are you going with this??

texas was a fight against the dictator santa ana .....what does that have to do with the civil war....your the one spinning off subject here......and yes the usa was born in the genocide of the iindians.....so whats your point?

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
texas was a fight against the dictator santa ana .....what does that have to do with the civil war....your the one spinning off subject here......and yes the usa was born in the genocide of the iindians.....so whats your point?


You are screaming about states rights so what about the rights of the people that were here before the states?? So it is ok to fight against dictatorship but to fight for the right to be a free man is not enough of a cause?? You really do not make sense....

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
You are screaming about states rights so what about the rights of the people that were here before the states?? So it is ok to fight against dictatorship but to fight for the right to be a free man is not enough of a cause?? You really do not make sense....

hey i support freedom but if your going to enslave one race to fight for the freedom of another race......how is this a noble cause?.....its an oxymoron and doublethink at best......dont ya think?......and yes i know that there were tons of brave black men that fought for the north for there freedom......but they also fought for the south too

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
hey i support freedom but if your going to enslave one race to fight for the freedom of another race......how is this a noble cause?.....its an oxymoron and doublethink at best......dont ya think?......and yes i know that there were tons of brave black men that fought for the north for there freedom......but they also fought for the south too

Still does not change my original point THE SOUTH STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
Still does not change my original point THE SOUTH STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!

Which they did. They seceded, and they fired first.

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by kingmob
slavery was an issue.....granted and it wasnt the only issue......your stance is that if i dont agree that slavery was an issue then i must be for slavery and that im rascist?....thats BS....im not a rascist but what im saying is that the slavery issue was major propaganda the north used when the south was winning....early on in the war......
besides when lincoln proposed his enrollment act of conscription the irish immigrants who were slated for the draft revolted and lynched and murdered a bunch of blacks in ny.....so basicaly the north enslaved the irish to go fight for the release of southern blacks......and in the end the slaves got there freedom and we all became 14th admendment slaves......so whats your take on the enslavement of the irish?......they must of been a bunch of bigots too since they lynched blacks because they figured it was there fault that they were gonna become cannon fodder in lincoln's war of aggresion vs. the south......again most people in the south did not own slaves.....and more southerns than you think were against slavery.....
draft riots in ny 1863 (http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm)

The south had a higher percentage of drafted soldiers, and had the first draft. There were riots there too, but we don't learn about that.

[kingmob]

Originally posted by tigeraholic
Still does not change my original point THE SOUTH STARTED THE CIVIL WAR!

no they didnt....

[williethebasset]

Originally posted by kingmob
no they didnt....

Yes they did. They seceeded, they fired the shots first.

[tigeraholic]

Originally posted by kingmob
no they didnt....

if someone does not agree with you then it is not the truth...:rolleyes: