PortaJohn

#102,602
700331D3-416E-420F-A63B-F7E0CABCA50E.jpeg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Wild dog, gigamortis, hino895 and 7 others
#102,608
TicTacTex said:
Aside from the fact that he’s….. Catholic.
Click to expand...
Lots of people claim to be Christian but do not hold to the tenets of the faith. Being Catholic doesn't make one Christian by default - believing and submitting one's life to Christ and His commands is the defining factor. There are lots of wolves in sheep's clothing. This includes many in the Protestant faiths, as well as Jews who dont hold to thier faith. I would argue that this is one of the few advantages of the woke movement - it has called out many who want to identify as something outwardly but their actions show them as either ignorant of their faith or are opposed to it. In that regard it has been helpful to identify these charlatans.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: gigamortis, Bender, Beefmanne and 6 others
#102,609
samadisoulcrusher said:
Got to erase the white man's history! No commie revolution ever succeeds without destroying the history and culture of the people!
This time they are not only replacing the history and culture of the people. They are replacing the people with
whole different races of people!
Click to expand...
What if I told you 4 of these 5 books lay out exactly the why and how?

16951611530145239426299734942515.jpg

Love me a good copyright 1939 1st Edition print.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs, Beefmanne, samadisoulcrusher and 3 others
#102,610
lariat said:
Lots of people claim to be Christian but do not hold to the tenets of the faith. Being Catholic doesn't make one Christian by default - believing and submitting one's life to Christ and His commands is the defining factor. There are lots of wolves in sheep's clothing. This includes many in the Protestant faiths, as well as Jews who dont hold to thier faith. I would argue that this is one of the few advantages of the woke movement - it has called out many who want to identify as something outwardly but their actions show them as either ignorant of their faith or are opposed to it. In that regard it has been helpful to identify these charlatans.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about the pope or those Christians who complain that Jesus is too woke?
 
#102,611
Father O’blivion said:
Do you realize how many other things would be changed if SCOTUS deemed the unborn to be persons?
Click to expand...
I have a few ideas.

First of all, anyone performing an abortion could be charged with and convicted of murder.

Second, the baby killers would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to redefine a "person." Now imagine what that would be like when the leftists can't even provide a definition for a woman and believe in a multitude of genders.

Thirdly, like I said before, the baby killers would probably start a civil war as well as targeting pro-lifers and pregnancy distress health centers with terrorist attacks.

Fourth, the baby-killers would probably target pro-life members of the SCOTUS for assassination as well as any other pro-life politicians.

Fifth, if you thought cheating during the 2020 election was bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

Sixth, maybe the fence-sitters will choose a side. The SCOTUS has been viewed not only as the final opinion on matters of law but as the arbiters of morality. So for a time, many believed that abortion was moral and a constitutional right. After all, the SCOTUS said so. Then it must be true. In other words, people's moral compasses were directed by SCOTUS opinion.

Maybe some people's opinion would change for the better if an unborn baby were giving the legal definition of "person."

Finally, and hopefully, more babies will be saved.

What do you think will happen?
 
#102,612
Father O’blivion said:
Are we talking about the pope or those Christians who complain that Jesus is too woke?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the communist Pope and those who deny portions of Scripture while proclaiming to hold fast to it. They only hold fast to what they want others to adhere to so that their sin is not called out and exempted from scrutiny. Either you are or you aren't. This is not a mystery - every group has a set of standards, and trying to ease those standards so that one can fit in doesn't make someone a member, it makes them dishonest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigamortis and armorpl8chikn
#102,613
Longshot231 said:
I have a few ideas.

First of all, anyone performing an abortion could be charged with and convicted of murder.

Second, the baby killers would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to redefine a "person." Now imagine what that would be like when the leftists can't even provide a definition for a woman and believe in a multitude of genders.

Thirdly, like I said before, the baby killers would probably start a civil war as well as targeting pro-lifers and pregnancy distress health centers with terrorist attacks.

Fourth, the baby-killers would probably target pro-life members of the SCOTUS for assassination as well as any other pro-life politicians.

Fifth, if you thought cheating during the 2020 election was bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

Sixth, maybe the fence-sitters will choose a side. The SCOTUS has been viewed not only as the final opinion on matters of law but as the arbiters of morality. So for a time, many believed that abortion was moral and a constitutional right. After all, the SCOTUS said so. Then it must be true. In other words, people's moral compasses were directed by SCOTUS opinion.

Maybe some people's opinion would change for the better if an unborn baby were giving the legal definition of "person."

Finally, and hopefully, more babies will be saved.

What do you think will happen?
Click to expand...
There would be legal uproar over citizenship, due process, child support, taxation, plus any number of other areas. Not even Alito wants to take up that discussion. If you’re only interested in ending abortions then I can see how you have developed your point of view, but this sort of declaration would have wide ranging effects.
 
#102,614
lariat said:
I was referring to the communist Pope and those who deny portions of Scripture while proclaiming to hold fast to it. They only hold fast to what they want others to adhere to so that their sin is not called out and exempted from scrutiny. Either you are or you aren't. This is not a mystery - every group has a set of standards, and trying to ease those standards so that one can fit in doesn't make someone a member, it makes them dishonest.
Click to expand...
Agree, you either follow scripture or don’t.
 
#102,615
Father O’blivion said:
There would be legal uproar over citizenship, due process, child support, taxation, plus any number of other areas. Not even Alito wants to take up that discussion. If you’re only interested in ending abortions then I can see how you have developed your point of view, but this sort of declaration would have wide ranging effects.
Click to expand...
And that's just like the Dred Scott decision in 1856. The SCOTUS didn't want to consider the issue of slavery then but had to do something.

The Dred Scott might have been the legally correct decision but not a morally correct decision. Notice what I said, it was the correct legal decision to make but morally repugnant.

From the decision with emphasis added.

"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them."

In the next paragraph the SCOTUS deflects any responsibility. They basically say "Don't blame us. Congress make the laws, We don't."

"It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or law-making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is, to interpret the instrument they have framed, with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted."

IMHO, the SCOTUS didn't go far enough in the Dobbs decision. The 14th amendment clearly rectified the Dred Scott decision. The SCOTUS could have ensconced the term person to mean anyone, living or dead as well as in or out of the womb.

Like the Dred Scott decision, the SCOTUS threw the conundrum back on the states. I pray to God that one day they will grow a spine and do the right thing regardless of the cost.

Is it worth an unborn baby's life to achieve a fragile peace among a polarized citizenry? Remember what the gun grabbers always say about banning guns; "If it will save one child's life it will be worth it."

Is political expediency worth the life of an unborn person?
 
#102,616
Father O’blivion said:
Are we talking about the pope or those Christians who complain that Jesus is too woke?
Click to expand...
Both and then some. Any "Christian" that complains about Jesus is absolutely NOT a true Christian. Even the demons He cast out were in awe of Him and knew exactly who and what He was. The demons of hell did not bad-mouth Jesus but rather begged Him for mercy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gigamortis, Bender, armorpl8chikn and 3 others
#102,618
www.thegatewaypundit.com

DHS Announces Establishment of New "Homeland Intelligence Experts Group" | The Gateway Pundit | by Brian Lupo

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security led by the failed Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas announced a new “group”: the “Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.” The “Experts Group” will operate under the Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Ken Waintstein, as well as Counterterrorism...
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com

We know who they are using this to go after, and its not their friends in the cartels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: armorpl8chikn
#102,625
Longshot231 said:
Is political expediency worth the life of an unborn person?
Click to expand...
On it’s face I’d say “no”, but I have uncertainties about the various viewpoints on abortion. Should the government even be involved in the process/decision? At what stage does personhood come into effect? If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights? If yes what about the rights of the mother? In my opinion it’s much more complicated.
 
#102,626
Father O’blivion said:
On it’s face I’d say “no”, but I have uncertainties about the various viewpoints on abortion. Should the government even be involved in the process/decision? At what stage does personhood come into effect? If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights? If yes what about the rights of the mother? In my opinion it’s much more complicated.
Click to expand...
My answers are in RED below.

Should the government even be involved in the process/decision?

Yes. There are laws on the books that protect the rights of people in all stages of development. There are laws against assault and battery, murder, rape and robbery. In some states, it's still against the law to commit a mercy killing. If a country cannot or will not protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us the how much less will it care about the rest of us?

If the unborn couldn’t survive outside the womb should it be granted personhood and all the inherent rights?

A person's level of development should not be used to determine whether they can live or not. I have a friend that is paralyzed from the neck down. He could not survive on his own without 24/7 care. Even though he's an adult does it give anyone the right to kill him or neglect his needs because he can't even wipe his on ass let alone feed himself?

I knew a boy in grade school, who was mentally retarded and suffered from epilepsy. He was born a normal child. When he was five another five year old smashed a brick on top of his head. That fractured his skull which caused the brain damage leading to the retardation and epilepsy.

Not quite to the level of inability to care for himself like my paralyzed friend, the boy I knew would require constant adult help for his entire life. So just because he required constant assistance did that make him any less deserving of life?

On a side note and nothing to do with this discussion, the five year old attacker grew up to be a nasty evil prick. To make a long story short, I beat him up when I was a high school freshman. Not a teacher was to be found. That was probably intentional. The rest of the kids in the hallway kept yelling for me to kill him. And I darn near killed him. I had blood on my clothes for the rest of the day. Nobody, even the teachers, asked why I had blood on me. I wanted to do to him what he did to the poor mentally retarded kid with epilepsy. Sometimes, what goes around does come around.

If yes what about the rights of the mother?

Baby killers have used that argument for several decades, One analogy is if you are involuntarily connected in someway that gives life support to another person. Or if you were forced (not asked) to donate one of your kidneys to another person who will die without the transplant. Imagine being forced to donate a kidney to Michelle Obama. Well that's one way we would know if she's a tranny.

Anyway, being forced to hook up to another or have a kidney removed would be a violation of your right. You should have your right to refuse that service to the other person who would most surely die as a result of your decision.

The baby-killers have used the same argument to "detach" the unborn baby from the mother. There is a stark difference with the two situations.

By refusing to be attached or be a donor to another person, their death is a predictable but unintended. Remember that your refusal has a foreseen but unintended result. You don't want him or her to die but you also have a right to keep your kidney.

The argument for a mother's bodily autonomy would be logical if the death of the baby was unintentional. However, the result of a successful abortion is the intentional death of the baby. A baby that survives an abortion is a result of a failed procedure. That's why the baby-killers were opposed to the Born Alive Protection Act.

There are some rare instances where the death of the unborn baby is foreseen but NOT intended. In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tube. If it remains there and continues to develop, the mother will die. There is no uncertainty about it.

The only way to save the life of the mother is to abort the unborn baby in the fallopian tube.

With a normal pregnancy, there is already a moral relationship between mother and baby before the decision to abort is already made. Also consider this, the woman has already consented to sex voluntarily. There was a moral decision to engage in an activity in which a new life is a predictable outcome.

What about rape or incest? The pro-abortion Guttmacher institute estimates that only 1% of the abortion cases are the result of rape. The rest are due to consensual sex.

I've met a couple of women with children conceived as a result of rape. Both of them had a wonderful relationship with their children. I'm not mitigating the awful experience of rape. A pregnancy is a heavy burden to go through for a woman, especially if she was raped.

However, two wrongs don't make a right.

What some men mean for evil, God can turn it around for good. The rape of a woman didn't escape God. He wasn't surprised by it and has a plan for that baby. A woman that's pregnant because of a rape and decides to keep the baby is a real hero. If she doesn't want to keep the baby but put it up for adoption to a loving couple, she's still a hero because she chose life.

The "pro-choice" crowd wants us to think that there is only one choice. There are two choices, one results in life.

In my opinion it’s much more complicated.

You are correct, there are complicated facets to this subject. That's only because we, as a nation, have made it complicated. The solutions are simple if we determine to what's right by the Almighty and Giver of Life. Just like the Sunday school song says, "God loves the children, all the little children of the world."

If He loves the children, then how can we justify killing them because they haven't relocated outside the womb?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Crewdog135, LeftyJason, TicTacTex and 1 other person
#102,631
  • Angry
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: Bender, armorpl8chikn, PinesAndProjectiles and 5 others
#102,633
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: gigamortis, Bender, Sandhog308 and 2 others
#102,635
  • Like
Reactions: NoDopes and gigamortis
#102,636
www.thegatewaypundit.com

Conservative Bond: Italian Salvini and French Le Pen United Against Mass Migration, Ahead of EU Elections Next Year | The Gateway Pundit | by Paul Serran

The US and the EU have been dealing with uncontrolled mass migration from poorer countries in a level that would be considered impossible just a few years ago.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com

Do something NOW. Meloni esp. has been a huge disappointment - she has a largely conservative government to work wth instead she is "honoring" her EU ties. Just like Abbott here in TX,she is making a conscious choice to let the "new residents" in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: NoDopes, gigamortis and theLBC
#102,643
  • Like
Reactions: 91Eunozs, NoDopes, gigamortis and 6 others
#102,644
UKDslayer said:
www.thegatewaypundit.com

BREAKING BIG: Via House Judiciary Committee Republicans - FBI LOST COUNT of How Many Paid Informants They Had in the Trump Crowd on January 6! | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

The House Judiciary Republicans sent out an explosive letter on Tuesday night that CHANGES EVERYTHING!
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
Click to expand...
www.thegatewaypundit.com

Confirmed: It Appears Former FBI DC Supervisor D'Antuono Was Lying to House Investigators About the Number of FBI Operatives Embedded in Crowds on January 6 | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

As reported earlier on Tuesday, The House Judiciary Republicans sent out a letter Tuesday that includes transcribed testimony from former Assistant Director-in-Charge of the Washington Field Office (WFO) Steven D’Antuono.
www.thegatewaypundit.com www.thegatewaypundit.com
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mwalex
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LuckyDuck
Quick question for the "watch guys" on the Hide here...
Replies
14
Views
685
LuckyDuck
LuckyDuck
K
  • Locked
Firearms Nope
Replies
1
Views
843
kriller134
K
Lowlight
Some to think about ....
Replies
55
Views
3K
UKDslayer
U
Lowlight
The Everyday Sniper Podcast: The Great Reset
Replies
0
Views
467
Lowlight
Lowlight
jinxx4ever
So you learn why Trump is asking for Greenland and the canal
Replies
7
Views
922
232593
232593
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts