Winchester Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I wasn't the guy making the grandiose claim that a politician "permanently changed" the pro-life movement simply by running in a national election. But you are the guy implying that winning a national election is the only means of changing jack. You really should get involved in nullification. All the cool kids are supporting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 But you are the guy implying that winning a national election is the only means of changing jack. You really should get involved in nullification. All the cool kids are supporting it. Shut up, Donnie. You're out of your league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Shut up, Donnie. You're out of your league. My understanding of that movie is deeper than your understanding of that movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 My understanding of that movie is deeper than your understanding of that movie. I do not doubt you deeply need to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I do not doubt you deeply need to believe that. You are lucky that the 'rule' against splitting infinitives is not actually a real rule of the English language. :proud: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southern california guy Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 I wasn't the guy making the grandiose claim that a politician "permanently changed" the pro-life movement simply by running in a national election. Organizations change, movements change, people change their opinions and positions.... Sorry it happens. If the National Right to Life, and other Pro-life organizations gave their support to Romney -- who believed that it was ok to kill a baby to protect the emotional health of the mother (In cases of rape, incest, etc..) -- did that mean that they agreed with him? Roe V Wade was argued on the basis that concerns for a womans health had to balanced against the unborn babies right to life. I was speculating that many "pro-lifers" actually agreed with Romney -- and now believe that abortion is necessary to protect the "health" of the mother. By ignoring my argument and suggesting that I had made a "grandiose claim" you seem to be trying to be trying to make me appear ridiculous rather than debating the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now