Paul Ryan

[Minimalist]

Things that are not relevant to this question: (Not necessarily exhaustive)

1) Whether CliveStaples likes Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
2) Obama's birth certificate.
3) Bain Capital.
4) Whether the "sanctity of human life" act is good policy

5. Fucking jesus and your bible.

[CliveStaples]

Things that are not relevant to this question: (Not necessarily exhaustive)

1) Whether CliveStaples likes Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
2) Obama's birth certificate.
3) Bain Capital.
4) Whether the "sanctity of human life" act is good policy

5. Fucking jesus and your bible.

Okay. Answer the question?

---

Oh, and by the way:

"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."

[Whateverist]

But we already know the answer to that.

why are you bothering with this asshole? If you convince him paul ryan does want to outlaw abortion, will it change his opinion about paul ryan? NO, will it change his opinion about abortion? NO all he's doing is spewing lies & propaganda in hopes of convincing some retard indpendent into voting for them

.. or for anyone other than Obama which would amount to the same thing.

---

5. Fucking jesus and your bible.

Okay. Answer the question?

---

Oh, and by the way:

"Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."

Who to hell appointed you as arbiter of which question needs answering? Your sense of entitlement is overwhelming .. you pompous, effete, woman hating, bible thumping, little man.

[Reforged]

If you needed another reason to not vote for Romney/Ryan, here you go. Part of Ryan's sanctity of human life act.


http://jezebel.com/5934975/paul-ryan-spo...m-aborting

That's merely Jezebel's characterization of the bill--oh, wait, I mean the two sentences of the bill that they quote--not the language of the bill itself.

How about an argument--from the text of the bill and caselaw--that this kind of suit could stand?

Simply a characterization is it? Are you saying it doesn't allow for such a thing?
Please, enlighten me with your highly complex understanding of the bill. :-)

[CliveStaples]

Who to hell appointed you as arbiter of which question needs answering?

Nobody--least of all me. I simply pointed out that his post was unresponsive to the question I asked, which was whether Ryan's bill would allow a rapist to sue his victim to prevent an abortion.

He doesn't have to answer the question if he doesn't want to--but if he's going to quote my post, I'd hope that he'd say something responsive instead of irrelevant red herring nonsense.

Your sense of entitlement is overwhelming .. you pompous, effete, woman hating, bible thumping, little man.

...? Insult me all you like, it doesn't prove that Ryan's bill would allow a rapist to sue his victim to prevent an abortion. That your flaming is tolerated on this board reflects poorly on the administrators of this site.

---

Simply a characterization is it? Are you saying it doesn't allow for such a thing?
Please, enlighten me with your highly complex understanding of the bill. :-)

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim; the claim here is that the bill authorizes a certain act. Until I see evidence supporting this claim, it carries no weight.

[Anomalocaris]

...? Insult me all you like, it doesn't prove that Ryan's bill would allow a rapist to sue his victim to prevent an abortion. That your flaming is tolerated on this board reflects poorly on the administrators of this site.

The fact that you are still allowed to post here nullifies any pitious squeak you might utter at the unfairness of it all.

[Faith No More]

...? Insult me all you like, it doesn't prove that Ryan's bill would allow a rapist to sue his victim to prevent an abortion. That your flaming is tolerated on this board reflects poorly on the administrators of this site.

Considering that you aren't privy to what we do tolerate, because all warnings and such are done behind the scenes, your condemnation of the administrators reflects poorly on your character. If you have any issues with the admins. or mods. of this site, feel free to pm us, but whining about it openly to everyone else comes across as spineless.

[Whateverist]

I do apologize for referring to you as a little man. I admit I'm not privy to the facts regarding your physical stature. I was out of line. However I think every other adjective I used was fairly descriptive of the way you come across here. Of course effete and pompous is a little redundant but that is a stylistic fault, not one of accuracy. I suppose the principle should be not to attack the person but it is your bossy and haughty manner rather than what you say that I object to. I am embarrassed to have stooped to this level. I shall try harder not to go ad hominem on you again even if I feel put off my your manner of expression. (I actually feel you have potential even if now I find you annoying.)

[CliveStaples]

The fact that you are still allowed to post here nullifies any pitious squeak you might utter at the unfairness of it all.

I didn't say anything about unfairness. Even if I am allowed (for the sake of fairness) to flame just as much as you have, I wouldn't bother. It doesn't answer the factual question in the thread. It doesn't answer whether Paul Ryan supported a bill that would permit rapists to sue their victims to prevent abortions. That's an incredibly damning allegation, if true.

---

Considering that you aren't privy to what we do tolerate, because all warnings and such are done behind the scenes, your condemnation of the administrators reflects poorly on your character. If you have any issues with the admins. or mods. of this site, feel free to pm us, but whining about it openly to everyone else comes across as spineless.

I don't know what you tolerate. I'm not saying that you're tolerating him. I'm just saying--and I hope that most people would agree--that tolerating flaming (strings of insults with no substantive response) leads to a worse community.

But, hey, that's just the way I'd moderate if it were my site. You guys can run the site however you like--and you don't even have to tolerate criticism of how you choose to do so. If I've got a problem with a flamer, I can just ignore him.

Which I've just done! Happy moderating =)

[Faith No More]

I don't know what you tolerate. I'm not saying that you're tolerating him. I'm just saying--and I hope that most people would agree--that tolerating flaming (strings of insults with no substantive response) leads to a worse community.

At the risk of furthering this conversation beyond what is necessary, I feel I must point out that that is absolutely not what you said. You outright accused the staff of tolerating it and went on to say it reflects poorly on us.