Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you don't know, then how would you know that a zygote is not an actual human life? In other words, it is quite possible that you could be wrong since, after all, you don't know.

---

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good.

Quote:

---

As to viability, if medicine is some day able to take a zygote and have it develop to maturity outside the womb, then would that make the zygote a human life since it would then meet the definition of viability?

---

What is your definition of viability?

Quote:

---

That's a legitimate question since medical science is continually pushing the age of viability further and further back. It seems strange to me to attach the value of human life to the abilities of medical science.

---

Is a clone a human life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You do realize that your link added nothing to our conversation about what constitutes human life? It was simply a basic discussion of the development of the zygote, none of which was in debate here, and it added nothing to the statement of Athos that he did not know when human life began, so I'm not sure of what your purpose was.

---

The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

Quote:

---

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.

---

Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

Quote:

---

The site affirms what you posted, that a zygote is the beginning of a baby.

---

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.

Quote:

---

As to Hitler's supposed mental illness, I long for the day on this site when people will learn to defend their assertions with something other than the ubiquitous (on this site) plea to "google it". If you have some information, then present it. Otherwise, I still see your diagnosis as pure speculation.
Googling will tell you that diagnosis is generally accepted.

---

Please read my comment above.

Quote:

---

Actually this is what I wrote about my position.

'Maybe that's the difference in us, as some see in absolutes, and some see in the full range where there is a middle ground. We have debated when life begins, and some say when the egg is fertilized, some say when it leaves the womb.

I will be honest and abortions after 6 to 8 weeks just creep me out. Cleaning out a zygote not so much. Life can be precious, to some all life is, but of the more than a hundred and 50 million women and a falling...so on and so forth.

---

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

Quote:

---

What a mess of BS! Obviously, the question you posed was POST-ZYGOTE.

You have this habit of re-writing what others have said to fit your argument. I've noticed it almost from the beginning when you skated around Bible questions. Now I see that others here are experiencing the same thing, and calling you out over it, but it doesn't seem to do any good

---

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

Stop whining. It gets old. Tal alleged I was changing his quotes. That turned out to be plainly not true. He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Then why did you direct it to me? It was given as a response to my post. If you thought Athos was wrong, then why not direct it at him? An any rate, I understand your point and it is valid, but my statement was much more to the effect that the zygote is a human life. It doesn't seem like a great difference between the two, but some on this site will nitpick it so I try to be careful with my terms.

Please read my comment aboI did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

---

I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

Quote:

---

I have absolutely NO idea what you're raging on and on about.

---

The second paragraph was directed at Tal's quote. As to my reply to you, I don't think I raged about anything, but I guess that's how you see it. If so, it was not intentionally done that way.

Quote:

---

I did not misrepresent your views. As I plainly said, "but I can at least make clear what are the ramifications of what you profess to believe." Now you don't like being called out on it. I wouldn't either if I believed what you claim to believe. That's why I don't believe that. If you can't handle it, then believe something more humane and reasonable.

---

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle, whatever you rave about, I can handle that too. Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This was my question. "then when does it actually become human life?" There was nothing about "post-zygote". It was a simple, straight-forward question. At any rate, if you don't know, then you don't know. That was your statement.

---

You took it out of context altering its meaning. I'm not surprised.

Quote:

---

As to skating around Bible questions, where is your reply to the Matthew 25 question?

---

I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.

Quote:

---

He, nor you, nor for that matter most of us, like having to accept the consequences of beliefs.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, but when I am proven wrong, I accept it and adjust my beliefs.

(Is a clone human life?)

Quote:

---

I'll stick with what I beleive in thank you. That I can handle,

---

Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.

Quote:

---

Some full moon we had, wasn't it, you lunatic. See I do understand you better than you understand yourself. Now go shave your ears.

---

As I said earlier, when a person resorts to name calling, it demonstrates that they have nothing useful to say and have lost the argument.

Quote:

---

I am waiting for a reply from a scholar who is verifying (or refuting) an observation of mine.

---

OK. In the meantime, you might want to ask him/her about Matthew 13. "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth"

---

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

Quote:

---

Evidently not. You sure get upset about it when someone calls your hand on it.

---

Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?
PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

Quote:

---

Please tell me - How does a day-old baby sin?

---

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.

Quote:

---

Is that what you call your responses? Naw, I never take those ranting personally, that's just the way lunatics express themselves. You really think your responses upset me?
PS

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

---

Like I said. Name calling is the result of a lost argument. You evidently can't reason well enough to defend your positions so you just resort to hatred. Sad. I do think you are capable of better. But there has been one positive out of all of this. Reading your posts has given me a fresh view of the ugliness and ignorance of name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.

It's not name calling if it's TRUE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You forget. I told you two weeks ago that I would not discuss this further with you until you gathered up your courage and answered the Matthew 25 question.

---

Lol - answer enough.

Quote:

---

...name calling. I despise it now even more than I did.

---

Then why do you do it?

Quote:

---

That's too bad you mistake my humor for name calling even if there is enough evidence to assign you the label. Same for the dufus and you don't have to be a humorless sourpus about it.

---

Yeah. I guess that excuse makes sense to some people.

Quote:

---

Then why do you do it?

---

I don't believe I do. I did it once with you a couple of days ago. You called me on it and I immediately agreed with you and apologized. You can feel free to call me on it any time you want. I suppose you could make an issue about the "liberal amigos". "Amigos", of course, means "friends", so I wouldn't think that would be a problem, but if it is, I'll gladly stop. I do despise it.

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016?

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?

I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Anybody care to comment on Mulvaney admitting the dufus held up military money for Ukraine yesterday because he wanted them to turn over the server the DNC used in 2016?

Or maybe the announcement the G7 meeting would be held at a dufus golf course?

I'm biased because I know the dufus is a lying crook!

---

Not only that - he tried to walk it back last night. MAJOR foot-in-mouth disease. Dufus hints at inviting his pal Putin to G7.

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/polit...ard/ar-AAIZfVe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Or Hillary's incredible belief that both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard are Russian agents whose purpose is to run a third party campaign to ensure Trump's reelection. And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/polit...ard/ar-AAIZfVe

---

As usual, you got it wrong.

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

Quote:

---

She said Russian "assets" not "agents". Huge difference. The suggestion is that Putin et al are pushing her for a third party candidate thus taking away votes from the Democrats and helping to re-elect Trump. You do know they interfered in 2016 on behalf of Trump, don't you?

---

An asset is something owned by another person. So she is saying the Russkies own, in some way, those two women. And we are supposed to somehow feel better about that?

Quote:

---

So many people voted for Trump because they welcomed Russian interference? Maybe you want to re-write that.

---

I might want to re-write it if I had written it. And you want to complain about misrepresenting someone's statements??? I said, " And you wonder why so many people voted for Trump?" Considering the near hysterical preoccupation HC has with Russian assets, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that she did not win. With all of his problems, Trump is a universe better than HC would have been.

Trump inherited Obama's economy and made it better. Historic lows in unemployment sound pretty good to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

An asset is something owned by another person. So she is saying the Russkies own, in some way, those two women.

---

HC is saying that votes diverted to the woman will help Trump get re-elected.

Quote:

---

Considering the near hysterical preoccupation HC has with Russian assets,

---

Near hysterical? Really? You're the near hysterical one with that statement.

Quote:

---

With all of his problems, Trump is a universe better than HC would have been.

---

You're blinded by your HC obsession.

Quote:

---

Trump inherited Obama's economy and made it better. Historic lows in unemployment sound pretty good to me.

---

What did Trump do to achieve this?

Quote:

---

HC is saying that votes diverted to the woman will help Trump get re-elected.

---

That is ridiculous. Why would she need to be a Russian asset for that to happen? She is saying that those two women are attached in some way to the Russian government who is calling the tunes.

Quote:

---

What did Trump do to achieve this?

---

Funny how you ask that of Trump but not Obama. In both instances they provided leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is ridiculous. Why would she need to be a Russian asset for that to happen? She is saying that those two women are attached in some way to the Russian government who is calling the tunes.

---

You're missing the point. Russia will interfere with the election so that votes will go to her instead of the Dem candidate. She is not a "conscious" Russian asset. She is an asset because she will be used for Russian purposes as stated. HC is NOT saying the two women are attached to the Russian government. You are really missing the whole thing.

Quote:

---

Funny how you ask that of Trump but not Obama. In both instances they provided leadership.

---

Obama continued the Republican solution and bailed out the auto industry and regulated the big banks who were a main cause of the recession and extended the Bush tax cuts that helped revitalize the economy (unlike the Trump tax cuts which were a gift to his rich friends).

Trump has done disastrous tariff policies which he doesn't understand and which is ruining farms. He has rolled back the banking regs and, under Mulvaney, has defunded the CFPB which recovered 12 billion dollars to consumers. His tax cuts have not done a single thing he promised - they have been a boon to the wealthy - and have been an enormous UNNECESSARY increase to the national debt.

His approach to the Fed (whose leader he appointed) has been to constantly criticize his own appointee because he wants lower rates so the market will react. The Fed wisely resists him, so don't be surprised when he fires his appointee the next time he needs a diversion.

His unemployment, which you frequently cite, is simply part of the business cycle. They each have little to do with it although Trump takes total credit for it. On the other hand, Obama indirectly helped the unemployment situation by the Economic Stimulus Program.

Quote:

---

You're missing the point. Russia will interfere with the election so that votes will go to her instead of the Dem candidate. She is not a "conscious" Russian asset. She is an asset because she will be used for Russian purposes as stated. HC is NOT saying the two women are attached to the Russian government. You are really missing the whole thing.

---

How do you know that's what she meant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How do you know that's what she meant?

---

Because that's what she said!!!!!!!

This is what she said. "I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

So the Russians are grooming her, but she is independent of the Russians? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

As to what Trump has done for the economy, it sure is working. Obama had eight years and couldn't match it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This is what she said. "I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, in apparent reference to Gabbard. “She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

So the Russians are grooming her, but she is independent of the Russians? Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.

---

Good Lord! You simply refuse to understand it. Gabbard is PASSIVE. She's not in cahoots with the Russians. Being groomed does NOT mean she is actively participating. For example - maybe you've heard of this, a sad commentary on today's climate - adult pedophiles who groom children for later abuse. The children are unaware of the "grooming". So likewise is Gabbard unaware of the Russian grooming.

If that doesn't do it for you, I'll have to hope someone else comes in and tries an explanation more suited to your capacity.

Quote:

---

As to what Trump has done for the economy, it sure is working. Obama had eight years and couldn't match it.

---

Hard to believe you wrote that after what I wrote. Did you even read what I wrote?

I'm sorry to have to say this Jl, but you have some serious comprehension difficulties. The way you replied to the two issues in this post are new to me in their complete mis- or non-apprehension. Previously, you have done well from your point of view, but not now.

I don't think there's any point in your coming back with more sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Good Lord! You simply refuse to understand it. Gabbard is PASSIVE. She's not in cahoots with the Russians. Being groomed does NOT mean she is actively participating. For example - maybe you've heard of this, a sad commentary on today's climate - adult pedophiles who groom children for later abuse. The children are unaware of the "grooming". So likewise is Gabbard unaware of the Russian grooming.

---

Yes. I'm sure that's how it is. As to what TG is aware of, how would you know that? You don't know that anymore than you know what Clinton meant.

Quote:

---

If that doesn't do it for you, I'll have to hope someone else comes in and tries an explanation more suited to your capacity.

---

Good grief. What an arrogant know-it-all you are.

Quote:

---

Hard to believe you wrote that after what I wrote. Did you even read what I wrote?

---

So if you write something it just has to be right? How fascinating.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry to have to say this Jl, but you have some serious comprehension difficulties. The way you replied to the two issues in this post are new to me in their complete mis- or non-apprehension. Previously, you have done well from your point of view, but not now.

I don't think there's any point in your coming back with more sarcasm.

---

Still waiting for your Matthew 25 answer, but it's only been two weeks. Next time I guess I need to ask something more suited to your capacity.

I wonder why none of the dufus sycophants has produced any other charges of corruption to justify holding up the military aid to the Ukraine other than a bogus server from the DNC or his political opponents. It would see a simple thing to put such concerns before the congress who approved and appropriated the money, or the pentagon that vetted and reported to the congress. That's sort of what the whistle blower and witnesses have been saying all along that the dufus was making broad allegations of corruption but the only specifics were against the DNC and the Bidens.

I think I have already posted this is a huge smear campaign against the dems and the dufus wanted to lift sanctions against Vlad the invaders of Ukraine, and wanted the Ukrainian government to help in that smear. Ever heard of a nation being invaded to be urged to cut a deal with the country that invaded them?

Ever hear a president blast the guys who helped defeat a terrorist mob and cut and run and leave them to the guys who are their enemies? Supposedly our allies but didn't want to lift a finger to help us against the terrorists without much cajoling. Now we can condemn such actions but what should be done about it besides what the dems are doing by looking into these examples of bad and possibly unlawful behavior?

Got ideas?

Listening to a Tulsi Gabbard interview. She said that Hillary considered her to be "a Russian asset and a traitor to the country I love." Hmmm. She further said that Hillary "smeared her character".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Listening to a Tulsi Gabbard interview. She said that Hillary considered her to be "a Russian asset and a traitor to the country I love." Hmmm. She further said that Hillary "smeared her character".

---

TG isn't very sharp, sounds like.

Tulsi may not be a lot of things but she sure is a fine looking woman!

Now, I must ask: Why are the Demos getting so roiled because T.G. is going to run as a Third Party Candidate? I know why: Because the Demos and Repubs WANT TO HOG THE ENTIRE GOVERNING PROCESS FOREVER...….they will never allow a Third Party...why would they: no need to share. Demos and Repubs BOTH will jump all over T.G. with the long knives before its over.....just like they did to Ross Perot.....and you call this a "Free Election Process", really, because people have a whole big two choices instead of one?

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING......because the Annointed One, Hillary Clinton, says so! Anybody believing ANYTHING Hillary says must just be dim witted....she is such a fraud. Do you know how stupid this all sounds that Tulsi is being promoted by the Russians: So, now, we are to believe that ANY TIME a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE runs for election as POTUS, they must be set up by the Russians? God Almighty! YOU PEOPLE ARE PARANOID! Its like the McCarthy era: You see RUSSIANS EVERYWHERE: You are way, way too far gone....need to reel it back in!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING......because the Annointed One, Hillary Clinton, says so! Anybody believing ANYTHING Hillary says must just be dim witted....she is such a fraud. Do you know how stupid this all sounds that Tulsi is being promoted by the Russians: So, now, we are to believe that ANY TIME a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE runs for election as POTUS, they must be set up by the Russians? God Almighty! YOU PEOPLE ARE PARANOID! Its like the McCarthy era: You see RUSSIANS EVERYWHERE: You are way, way too far gone....need to reel it back in!

---

Let us just think about the lesson of that movie for a while, the Russians are just a little off course and not a threat, just the victims of US paranoia

Quote:

---

TG isn't very sharp, sounds like.

---

Sounds to me like she understood Clinton's statement perfectly.

One thing I've always hated about silly season is the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents. Everybody is trying to get elected and everybody tries to play the game. That's what politicians do, but let's separate those events and antics from the very real Russian aggressiveness. You already have a Russia friendly WH, matter of fact he is friendly with all the dictators and monarchs who rule with the iron fist and stifle their enemies.

The notion that we are paranoid and Vlad is a little off course thought Clete is like calling a hurricane a little windy. Vlad is both vicious and ruthless and slick as a snake and even more dangerous. He will bite you with his poisonous fangs if you try and pet him. Go ahead, pet the snake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

O

The notion that we are paranoid and Vlad is a little off course thought Clete is like calling a hurricane a little windy. Vlad is both vicious and ruthless and slick as a snake and even more dangerous. He will bite you with his poisonous fangs if you try and pet him. Go ahead, pet the snake.

---

Of course you are paranoid, any nation that has faced external attack is, and there is no use denying that your military is the result of paranoia. You are afraid of Russia a nation less than half your size and nowhere near your economic or military capability. China is also paranoid and acts accordingly.

Vlad only hopes you will lift your sanctions and leave him to interact with his traditional allies

Vlad should have thought of that before he used his military to annex Crimea, or invade the Ukraine. The sanction only limit his ability to skim noney from the coffers of his country, but he hasn't lost a dime, nor have his oligarchs and mobsters, or his armies. Assad would be gone without him, and there are still those nukes and the means to deliver devastation.

Sure we have conventional wars and conflict going on, but CYBER is the new front being fought on, and the dufus is covering for Vlad. He owes Vlad! That's not good.

Quote:

---

One thing I've always hated about silly season is the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents. Everybody is trying to get elected and everybody tries to play the game. That's what politicians do, but let's separate those events and antics from the very real Russian aggressiveness. You already have a Russia friendly WH, matter of fact he is friendly with all the dictators and monarchs who rule with the iron fist and stifle their enemies.

---

Now that's funny. You claim to hate the constant mudslinging and smearing aimed at opponents, and then proceed to throw mud at and smear Trump. Well, if you really hate it, then maybe you should stop doing it.

You hate it when it's done against yo' boy, but when he does it all the time you vote for him. Tell him to stop, and when he does, I might. Until then get over it!

That should be easy enough for ANYBODY to understand.