If a billion prevents war it would be both a wise and inexpensive investment.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Russia in Ukraine
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't mind going off topic to tell the truth. You do support the slaughter of the innocent unborn child!
You know this is not true, but as you have nothing intelligent to say on most topics you dig this out. I suppose, even though it is false, it makes you feel better.
So CTB, would you publicly make a statement here & now that you actively stand against abortion?
Killfile him and be done with him.
poncho
Well-Known Member
That's the beauty of having a private banking cartel on hand ever ready and willing to expand our indebtedness to them.
Imagine having to pay for all our wars and interventions by raising taxes to pay for them instead of the debt level. We'd be tossing all the interventionists out of office tomorrow or the day after.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You support Obama and the democrat party which is the party of death. To deny that you support abortion is simple nonsense.
If you smoke you support the tobacco or pot industry.
If you drink you support the beer, wine, or whiskey industries.
If you travel you support the travel industry.
If you vote democrat you support the abortion industry.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Yes Earth, he will say it but he actively supports the party that celebrates the slaughter of the unborn child and that he cannot deny. he is a big supporter of Obama who voted against a bill while in the Illinois Senate that would require medical treatment of a baby alive after an abortion, not once but 3 or 4 times.
poncho
Well-Known Member
The problem with this is that Obama's State Dept has already spent 5 billion dollars to destabilize and overthrow the Ukrainian government which they must have known from the beginning would put Russia in a position where it would have to act to protect it's interests there which might spark a war.
Preventing a war isn't what they're after. What they're after is control of Ukraine's resources (EU membership and IMF "loans") and to expand NATO right up to the Russian's border.
Shame on the Russians for daring to protect their own interests in the region.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Russia, whether under the Czars or the Communists, has always tried to expand westward. Crimea is just one more example!
The Ukraine was totally absorbed into Russia in the 18th Century. The Ukraine as we know it today probably exists, just as Belarus does, because the Soviet Union insisted that these two be considered separate countries and be given seats in the UN. This, in essence, gave the Soviet Union two more votes in the UN. I think there was a 3rd country that was set up for the same reason by the insistence of the SU. After WW I Russia and the Ukraine fought together and began the set up of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Ukraine declared independence, but the SU had great influence there.
Russia has a very long history with the Ukraine and it is in their interest to maintain their influence there. It is not in our interest for them to do so. Thus, lots of tension.
Again you spew your falsehood about supporting abortion.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Which of the statements is false.
1. Is it not true that you support the democrat party, the party of death, which celebrated the slaughter of the unborn, giving particular attention one night, at its last nominating convention?
2. Is it not true that when Obama was a state senator in Illinois he voted 3 or more times against a bill that would require medical treatment for a child born alive after an attempt to murder the child?
3. Is it not true that you are a big supporter of Obama, the abortionist-in-chief?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Is it not true that Romney was correct in 2012 when he named Russia as our major geo-political foe?
Is it not true that Obama incorrectly named Al-Queda, whom he claimed was feckless because of his use of drones?
Is it not true that Obama said he was good at killing people?
Is it not true that Obama said he could be more flexible with Putin after the election.
It is also true that Bush 2 foolishly misread Putin, saying he could look into the soul of this KGB officer!
Is it just possible that Khruschev was correct when he said the US would end up on the trash heap of history.
Is it just possible that Obama and his flexibility with Putin will putin us there?
Is it not true that Obama incorrectly named Al-Queda, whom he claimed was feckless because of his use of drones?
Is it not true that Obama said he was good at killing people?
Is it not true that Obama said he could be more flexible with Putin after the election.
It is also true that Bush 2 foolishly misread Putin, saying he could look into the soul of this KGB officer!
Is it just possible that Khruschev was correct when he said the US would end up on the trash heap of history.
Is it just possible that Obama and his flexibility with Putin will putin us there?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
And you support the GOP?
If so, despite 40 years of the abomination, no GOP president or congress or Supreme Court has done anything substantial to stop the killing of children. Both parties are complicate in this travesty.
Not 'as bad' as the democrats? Maybe - but there is no virtue in the US government when it comes to killing children.
This guilt by supposed associate is useless and using it to derail thread after thread after thread only destroys reasoned debate.
This thread has nothing to do with abortion - please stay on topic.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Surely you jest!
The democrat party controlled the House continuously from 1954 until 1994 which means that in the first 21 years of Roe v Wade no legislation restricting the slaughter of the unborn could possibly be introduced much less passed. In the election of 1994 the Republicans took control of the House but there was the little matter of Bill Clinton. Even so the House on two occasions passed legislation to restrict the practice of Partial Birth Abortion, a procedure where the abortionist delivered the baby feet first, exposed the back of the skull, poked a hole, inserted a tube, and suctioned out the brain killing the baby and allowing completion of delivery. This bill twice passed both House and Senate and was twice vetoed by the misogynist Bill Clinton.
When Bush was elected in 2000 and the Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress the bill banning the grisly procedure described above was passed and signed into law by President Bush. Does anyone with half a brain believe the Senate under dingy Harry would pass any legislation emanating from the House much less pro-life legislation. Does anybody with half a brain believe that Obama, the abortionist-in-chief, would sign any bill restricting abortion. Recall that as a state senator in Illinois Obama voted 3 or more times against a bill that would require medical treatment for a child born alive after an attempt to murder the child. The last nominating convention for this proponent of mass murder spent part of the time celebrating the continuation of the slaughter of the unborn.
I would also note that a law similar to that Obama voted against as state Senator was passed into law by the Republican Congress and signed by President Bush. If I ma not mistaken that law was introduced by Senator Graham of South Carolina!
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I'll reply since the thread has changed topics.
So the GOP allowed 99.8% of all baby killings to carry on unabated.
Killing a baby partially out of the womb is no more heinous than in the womb.
At least the Democrats acknowledge the disregard for life. The GOP have learned to talk the talk and pat each other on the back while millions still die.
So the GOP allowed 99.8% of all baby killings to carry on unabated.
Killing a baby partially out of the womb is no more heinous than in the womb.
At least the Democrats acknowledge the disregard for life. The GOP have learned to talk the talk and pat each other on the back while millions still die.
Last edited by a moderator: