Valkyrie Riders Cruiser Club
July 22, 2025, 01:57:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Ultimate Seats Link VRCC Store
Homepage : Photostash : JustPics : Shoptalk : Old Tech Archive : Classifieds : Contact Staff
News: If you're new to this message board, read THIS!
 
MarkT Exhaust
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: libertarians let a dem take over kentucky  (Read 1699 times)
f6john
Member
*****
Posts: 9412


Christ first and always

Richmond, Kentucky


« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2019, 08:16:58 PM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

Just wondering how you feel about what the Governor did say in his own words?
Logged
F6Dave
Member
*****
Posts: 2266



« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2019, 05:25:29 AM »

That is exactly the case in my local district, and for some county offices.  Not only is no Republican on the ballot (only an unopposed Democrat), the Republican party will not even look for a candidate or contribute any money if one does run.

So this is what I do.  My ballot has a spot for a write-in, so I write in The Easter Bunny.

I voted for him three times Tuesday.  

It's a good thing you didn't write in Santa Claus.  A lot of democrat candidates pretend to be Santa, and that could have caused some confusion when they counted your ballot.
Logged
..
Member
*****
Posts: 27796


Maggie Valley, NC


« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2019, 05:36:09 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Logged
baldo
Member
*****
Posts: 6960


Youbetcha

Cape Cod, MA


« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2019, 05:49:18 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You've conveniently ignored the context of his quote....why am I not surprised.

"Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …"
Logged

f6john
Member
*****
Posts: 9412


Christ first and always

Richmond, Kentucky


« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2019, 06:39:41 AM »

If any of my former Democratic Party ties were still ingrained in me I would be out yelling.


Impeach 63!

Logged
98valk
Member
*****
Posts: 13510


South Jersey


« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2019, 07:28:46 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You've conveniently ignored the context of his quote....why am I not surprised.

"Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …"

"And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable."
 first off a so called fetus is an unborn Human Baby.

nazi germany policy, do u understand?

Child Euthanasia (German: Kinder-Euthanasie) was the name given to the organised murder of severely mentally and physically handicapped children and young people up to 16 years old during the Nazi era in over 30 so-called special children's wards. At least 5,000 children were victims of this programme, which was a precursor to the subsequent murder of children in the concentration camps.

In this particular case, the parents submitted a request that their severely disabled child be granted a "mercy killing", the application being received at an unverifiable time before the middle of 1939 at the Office of the Führer (KDF), also known as Hitler's Chancellery. This office was an agency of the Nazi Party and a private chancellery placed under the direct authority of Hitler which employed about 195 staff in 1939. Main Office IIb under Hans Hefelmann and his deputy, Richard von Hegener, was responsible for "clemency". The head of Main Office II and thus Hefelmann's superior was the Oberdienstleiter, Viktor Brack, one of the leading organizers of Nazi euthanasia.

The ideology of the Nazis was based on social Darwinism[citation needed] that held unreservedly to the notion of the survival of the fittest, at both the level of the individual as well as the level of entire peoples and states. This notion claimed to have natural law on its side. All opposing religious and humanitarian views would ultimately prove to be unnatural. A people could only prove its worth in the long run in this ongoing "struggle for survival", if they promoted the best and, if necessary, eliminated those that weakened them. Moreover, only a people as racially pure as possible could maintain the "struggle for existence". To maintain or improve the Nordic-Germanic race, therefore, the laws of eugenics or the (biologistically oriented) "racial hygiene" would have to be strictly observed, that is, the promotion of the "genetically healthy" and the elimination of the "sick". All those with hereditary illnesses or who were severely mentally and physically handicapped were classified as "lives unworthy of life" (lebensunwertes Leben). They would, in terms of natural selection, be "eliminated". This form of eugenics was eventually the basis of the National Socialist genetic health policy which was elevated to the rank of state doctrine.

In 1929 Hitler said at the Nazi Party Conference in Nuremberg, "that an average annual removal of 700,000-800,000 of the weakest of a million babies meant an increase in the power of the nation and not a weakening".[1] In doing so, he was able to draw upon scientific argument that transferred the Darwinian theory of natural selection to human beings and, through the concept of racial hygiene, formulated the "Utopia" of "human selection" as propounded by Alfred Ploetz, the founder of German racial hygiene. As early as 1895, he demanded that human offspring should not:

    be left to the chance encounter of a drunken moment. [...] If, nevertheless, it turns out that the newborn baby is a weak and misbegotten child, the medical council, which decides on citizenship for the community, should prepare a gentle death for it, say, using a little dose of morphine [...] .[2]

In 1935 Hitler also announced at the Nuremberg Nazi Party to the Reich Medical Leader Gerhard Wagner that he should aim to "eliminate the incurably insane", at the latest, in the event of a future war."[3][4]

The elimination of "undesirable elements" was implemented under the term "euthanasia" at the beginning of the Second World War. Petitions from parents of disabled children to the Hitler's Chancellery (KDF) that asked for their children to be given "mercy killing" were used as a justifiable excuse and to demonstrate external demand.
Phases of the Nazi Euthanasia Programme

The Nazi euthanasia killings may be broadly divided into the following phases:

    Child euthanasia from 1939 to 1945
    Adult euthanasia from 1940 to 1945
        Action T4, the centralised gas killings from January 1940 to August 1941
        Decentralised, but partly centrally-controlled medication-administered euthanasia or death by malnutrition from September 1941 to 1945
    Disabled or detainee euthanasia, known as Action 14f13 from April 1941 to December 1944
        First Phase from April 1941 to April 1944
        Second Phase from April 1944 to December 1944
    Action Brandt from June 1943 to 1945 (but recent research no longer counts this directly as part of the euthanasia complex.)[5]

According to the latest estimates about 260,000 people fell victim to the "War Against the Sick".[6]
Logged

1998 Std/Tourer, 2007 DR200SE, 1981 CB900C  10speed
1973 Duster 340 4-speed rare A/C, 2001 F250 4x4 7.3L, 6sp

"Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the goverment of any other."
John Adams 10/11/1798
..
Member
*****
Posts: 27796


Maggie Valley, NC


« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2019, 07:40:30 AM »

Please let's keep NAZIS out of this forum.

There's enough external crap without it being introduced here.

Logged
98valk
Member
*****
Posts: 13510


South Jersey


« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2019, 08:20:31 AM »

Please let's keep NAZIS out of this forum.

There's enough external crap without it being introduced here.



it is history.   many of the govt policies out there are directly from nazi germany policies. if one studies them one will see the correlation btwn them. it was documented over 30 yrs ago that the democrat gun control policies are from the nazi germany gun confiscation policies.
Logged

1998 Std/Tourer, 2007 DR200SE, 1981 CB900C  10speed
1973 Duster 340 4-speed rare A/C, 2001 F250 4x4 7.3L, 6sp

"Our Constitution was made only for a Moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the goverment of any other."
John Adams 10/11/1798
Moonshot_1
Member
*****
Posts: 5113


Me and my Valk at Freedom Rock


« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2019, 08:33:39 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You've conveniently ignored the context of his quote....why am I not surprised.

"Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …"

The problem is the context. The context was about abortion. This is an act of intentionally ending a life.

I don't have an issue with the what the guy described. A non-viable baby, a severe deformity and a discussion as to how to proceed medically, including allowing the "natural" death to occur as opposed to insane efforts that would perhaps, be inhumane. I get that. Sometimes the only options you get in life are bad ones.

But the context of this conversation was abortion. Again, that is intentionally ending a life. Killing a live birth baby because of a deformity or because it is projected to be "non-viable". And while some would say that in these specific cases it is an ethical and moral option, and while such an argument can be made, the problem in making it legal is that it opens a door that should never be opened. While we would all agree to the high standards for implementing such a law, if a woman has a "right" to abort a new born baby with deformities, what is the reasoning to not allow the woman the right to abort a new born baby?

Logged

Mike Luken 
 

Cherokee, Ia.
Former Iowa Patriot Guard Ride Captain
baldo
Member
*****
Posts: 6960


Youbetcha

Cape Cod, MA


« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2019, 09:07:36 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You've conveniently ignored the context of his quote....why am I not surprised.

"Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …"

The problem is the context. The context was about abortion. This is an act of intentionally ending a life.

I don't have an issue with the what the guy described. A non-viable baby, a severe deformity and a discussion as to how to proceed medically, including allowing the "natural" death to occur as opposed to insane efforts that would perhaps, be inhumane. I get that. Sometimes the only options you get in life are bad ones.

But the context of this conversation was abortion. Again, that is intentionally ending a life. Killing a live birth baby because of a deformity or because it is projected to be "non-viable". And while some would say that in these specific cases it is an ethical and moral option, and while such an argument can be made, the problem in making it legal is that it opens a door that should never be opened. While we would all agree to the high standards for implementing such a law, if a woman has a "right" to abort a new born baby with deformities, what is the reasoning to not allow the woman the right to abort a new born baby?



Are you serious? You're trying to make this something that it isn't.
Logged

Moonshot_1
Member
*****
Posts: 5113


Me and my Valk at Freedom Rock


« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2019, 10:10:45 AM »

the governor who wants to kill babies after they are born and did black face.

if it was a republican gov who said and did that.......

How in the hell can you possibly believe that bullshit?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

You've conveniently ignored the context of his quote....why am I not surprised.

"Ralph Northam: You know, I wasn’t there, Julie, and I certainly can’t speak for Delegate Tran, but I would tell you — one, the first thing I would say is this is why decisions such as this should be made by [healthcare] providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion …"

The problem is the context. The context was about abortion. This is an act of intentionally ending a life.

I don't have an issue with the what the guy described. A non-viable baby, a severe deformity and a discussion as to how to proceed medically, including allowing the "natural" death to occur as opposed to insane efforts that would perhaps, be inhumane. I get that. Sometimes the only options you get in life are bad ones.

But the context of this conversation was abortion. Again, that is intentionally ending a life. Killing a live birth baby because of a deformity or because it is projected to be "non-viable". And while some would say that in these specific cases it is an ethical and moral option, and while such an argument can be made, the problem in making it legal is that it opens a door that should never be opened. While we would all agree to the high standards for implementing such a law, if a woman has a "right" to abort a new born baby with deformities, what is the reasoning to not allow the woman the right to abort a new born baby?



Are you serious? You're trying to make this something that it isn't.

Was not the context of the conversation in question about abortion?
Logged

Mike Luken 
 

Cherokee, Ia.
Former Iowa Patriot Guard Ride Captain
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: