Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

So, now, I am not pro-life like you but instead pro-natal, and want my pro-natal views imposed on the country? And by pro-natal, you mean I want to see the birth rate rise, but don't want to protect children from abortion in the womb?

---

I'm sure you care about the unborn children on some level, but being pro-life means more than that. It would mean caring about the pregnant mothers at risk of death because their doctors are afraid to treat them, or the children being bombed and starved to make way for Trump's Gaza Riviera. I've seen little evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from you. On the contrary, you've always been ready to kill anyone and anything that stood in the way of the neocon agenda.

---

You don't know me from Adam. You don't know that my wife is on the board of a crisis pregnancy center here in East Austin, where we both regularly volunteer time and money on a monthly basis. You also don't know we have fostered about a dozen or so kids the past 10 years, and are a part of a church ministry to Texas Baptist Children's Home in Round Rock. I'd say my resume probably stacks up pretty well against a guy like you.

The idea that my position on Gaza is some indication of my valuation of life, especially coming from a guy who approves of Russia's bombing of civilian centers with women and children, and likes dictators and despots, is pretty ironic.

The truth is, you're projecting. There is little if any evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from yourself. You don't vote that way, and you certainly don't live your life that way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

We need to give Sam an early Christmas present

A device for lonely people pic.twitter.com/HfHZSAXiBU

— Interesting AF (@interesting_aIl) February 10, 2026

Somali Sam playing political hypocrite again.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

So, now, I am not pro-life like you but instead pro-natal, and want my pro-natal views imposed on the country? And by pro-natal, you mean I want to see the birth rate rise, but don't want to protect children from abortion in the womb?

---

I'm sure you care about the unborn children on some level, but being pro-life means more than that. It would mean caring about the pregnant mothers at risk of death because their doctors are afraid to treat them, or the children being bombed and starved to make way for Trump's Gaza Riviera. I've seen little evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from you. On the contrary, you've always been ready to kill anyone and anything that stood in the way of the neocon agenda.

---

You don't know me from Adam. You don't know that my wife is on the board of a crisis pregnancy center here in East Austin, where we both regularly volunteer time and money on a monthly basis. You also don't know we have fostered about a dozen or so kids the past 10 years, and are a part of a church ministry to Texas Baptist Children's Home in Round Rock. I'd say my resume probably stacks up pretty well against a guy like you.

The idea that my position on Gaza is some indication of my valuation of life, especially coming from a guy who approves of Russia's bombing of civilian centers with women and children, and likes dictators and despots, is pretty ironic.

The truth is, you're projecting. There is little if any evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from yourself. You don't vote that way, and you certainly don't live your life that way.

---

That's great, but it's not really what we're talking about. I'm only interested in the views you express here.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

So, now, I am not pro-life like you but instead pro-natal, and want my pro-natal views imposed on the country? And by pro-natal, you mean I want to see the birth rate rise, but don't want to protect children from abortion in the womb?

---

I'm sure you care about the unborn children on some level, but being pro-life means more than that. It would mean caring about the pregnant mothers at risk of death because their doctors are afraid to treat them, or the children being bombed and starved to make way for Trump's Gaza Riviera. I've seen little evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from you. On the contrary, you've always been ready to kill anyone and anything that stood in the way of the neocon agenda.

---

You don't know me from Adam. You don't know that my wife is on the board of a crisis pregnancy center here in East Austin, where we both regularly volunteer time and money on a monthly basis. You also don't know we have fostered about a dozen or so kids the past 10 years, and are a part of a church ministry to Texas Baptist Children's Home in Round Rock. I'd say my resume probably stacks up pretty well against a guy like you.

The idea that my position on Gaza is some indication of my valuation of life, especially coming from a guy who approves of Russia's bombing of civilian centers with women and children, and likes dictators and despots, is pretty ironic.

The truth is, you're projecting. There is little if any evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from yourself. You don't vote that way, and you certainly don't live your life that way.

---

That's great, but it's not really what we're talking about. I'm only interested in the views you express here.

---

Views are always more important than actions to the progressive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

So, now, I am not pro-life like you but instead pro-natal, and want my pro-natal views imposed on the country? And by pro-natal, you mean I want to see the birth rate rise, but don't want to protect children from abortion in the womb?

---

I'm sure you care about the unborn children on some level, but being pro-life means more than that. It would mean caring about the pregnant mothers at risk of death because their doctors are afraid to treat them, or the children being bombed and starved to make way for Trump's Gaza Riviera. I've seen little evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from you. On the contrary, you've always been ready to kill anyone and anything that stood in the way of the neocon agenda.

---

You don't know me from Adam. You don't know that my wife is on the board of a crisis pregnancy center here in East Austin, where we both regularly volunteer time and money on a monthly basis. You also don't know we have fostered about a dozen or so kids the past 10 years, and are a part of a church ministry to Texas Baptist Children's Home in Round Rock. I'd say my resume probably stacks up pretty well against a guy like you.

The idea that my position on Gaza is some indication of my valuation of life, especially coming from a guy who approves of Russia's bombing of civilian centers with women and children, and likes dictators and despots, is pretty ironic.

The truth is, you're projecting. There is little if any evidence of a consistent pro-life ethic from yourself. You don't vote that way, and you certainly don't live your life that way.

---

That's great, but it's not really what we're talking about. I'm only interested in the views you express here.

---

Oh I know you don't want to talk about that.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

I didn't change anything. We all use it in the narrower sense, but as the Wiki article shows, the idea of a consistent or whole life ethic has been around as long as the term itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

I didn't change anything. We all use it in the narrower sense, but as the Wiki article shows, the idea of a consistent or whole life ethic has been around as long as the term itself.

---

It has a very specific definition. There is no narrow or greater meaning. You don't get to redefine it. Typical progressive.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

I didn't change anything. We all use it in the narrower sense, but as the Wiki article shows, the idea of a consistent or whole life ethic has been around as long as the term itself.

---

Sure you did. We both know that "pro-life" has a very specific meaning in our society.

A consistent life ethic is a different thing entirely, as you well know..

You are neither.

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

To be fair to Sam, our side of the aisle has used "pro-life" to refer to opposition to assisted suicide for some time. It is his side that has unjustifiably tried to draw the moral equivalence to the death penalty and gun control.

Realitybites said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

To be fair to Sam, our side of the aisle has used "pro-life" to refer to opposition to assisted suicide for some time. It is his side that has unjustifiably tried to draw the moral equivalence to the death penalty and gun control.

---

In the same vein, women's healthcare is not
pro-life

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

Realitybites said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

From Websters:
Pro Life - "being opposed to abortion."

That's it, nothing about countries killing adults and kids in the Ukraine or Palestine, or hugging unicorns or fairies, or walking to Mordor to save middle earth.

You tried to lecture someone on the meaning of pro life. Do better. You don't get to change the definition. Typical progressive.

---

To be fair to Sam, our side of the aisle has used "pro-life" to refer to opposition to assisted suicide for some time. It is his side that has unjustifiably tried to draw the moral equivalence to the death penalty and gun control.

---

That's always been a matter of debate. I don't believe the latter issues are equivalent, nor does the Church.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

Except when it comes to immigration. Open borders for all. Much more moral when the fall of the country is from bad actors within.
You're a one man clown show.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

Except when it comes to immigration. Open borders for all. Much more moral when the fall of the country is from bad actors within.
You're a one man clown show.

---

Show me who's arguing for open borders here? That's right, no one.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

---

You are failing to understand how the site works and how it's used. Do better.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

---

You are failing to understand how the site works and how it's used. Do better.

---

I know exactly how the site works, not least that it has zero authority as a source.

That you try to dodge that fact says much about your ability to defend your claims.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

---

You are failing to understand how the site works and how it's used. Do better.

---

I know exactly how the site works, not least that it has zero authority as a source.

That you try to dodge that fact says much about your ability to defend your claims.

---

Wikipedia isn't for defending claims. It's for explaining the obvious.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

---

You are failing to understand how the site works and how it's used. Do better.

---

I know exactly how the site works, not least that it has zero authority as a source.

That you try to dodge that fact says much about your ability to defend your claims.

---

Wikipedia isn't for defending claims. It's for explaining the obvious.

---

Since you haven't defended your claim, and you oppose the obvious, Sam, you are still swinging wildly and missing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The idea that wiki counts as a source and authority demonstrates a basic failure to understand how the site works.

---

You are failing to understand how the site works and how it's used. Do better.

---

I know exactly how the site works, not least that it has zero authority as a source.

That you try to dodge that fact says much about your ability to defend your claims.

---

Wikipedia isn't for defending claims. It's for explaining the obvious.

---

Since you haven't defended your claim, and you oppose the obvious, Sam, you are still swinging wildly and missing.

---

Have fun debunking.

Quote:

---

Sky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about Earth's sky. For other skies, see extraterrestrial skies. For other uses, see Sky (disambiguation)

The sky is an unobstructed view upward from the surface of the Earth. It includes the atmosphere and outer space. It may also be considered a place between the ground and outer space, thus distinct from outer space.

In the field of astronomy, the sky is also called the celestial sphere. This is an abstract sphere, concentric to the Earth, on which the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars appear to be drifting. The celestial sphere is conventionally divided into designated areas called constellations.

Usually, the term sky informally refers to a perspective from the Earth's surface; however, the meaning and usage can vary. An observer on the surface of the Earth can see a small part of the sky, which resembles a dome (sometimes called the sky bowl) appearing flatter during the day than at night. In some cases, such as in discussing the weather, the sky refers to only the lower, denser layers of the atmosphere.

The daytime sky appears blue because air molecules scatter shorter wavelengths of sunlight more than longer ones (redder light). The night sky appears to be a mostly dark surface or region spangled with stars. The Sun and sometimes the Moon are visible in the daytime sky unless obscured by clouds. At night, the Moon, planets, and stars are similarly visible in the sky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky

---

Poor Sam, reduced to trying to change the subject ... again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

How many times has Ukraine launched an attack against Russia in the past 50ish years? How many times has Gaza launched an attack (rockets, terrorists, etc) in the past 50ish years?
Are you seriously trying to make an equivalence between these two situations?

You're an idiot if you do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

So, now you've gone from, the US wasn't justified in entering WWII to maybe. It's interesting how your positions evolve. Quite convenient.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, how many Ukrainian suicide bombers and rockets detonated in Russia? How many times had the Ukrainians conspired with their neighbors to launch an unprovoked military attack on Russia (and actually did so)? How many Russian partygoers were gunned down by Ukrainian militants? How many Russian civilians were killed in acts of state terrorism by Ukraine? How many times had Ukraine threatened war against Russia, and threatened its very existence?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course. We know that prior to the invasion of Crimea, none of those things occurred. There were no aggressive acts by Ukraine against Russia.

Palestine on the other hand? Engaged in all of the above (and continue to).

The idea that one situation justified an invasion, and the other didn't, it just utter utter hogwash that no reasonable, sane or moral person holds. It is quite the opposite.

Your views are consistently hypocritical and absurd.

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

How many times has Ukraine launched an attack against Russia in the past 50ish years? How many times has Gaza launched an attack (rockets, terrorists, etc) in the past 50ish years?
Are you seriously trying to make an equivalence between these two situations?

You're an idiot if you do.

---

Indeed, but he's not an idiot. He's just lost and morally bankrupt.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

So, now you've gone from, the US wasn't justified in entering WWII to maybe. It's interesting how your positions evolve. Quite convenient.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, how many Ukrainian suicide bombers and rockets detonated in Russia? How many times had the Ukrainians conspired with their neighbors to launch an unprovoked military attack on Russia (and actually did so)? How many Russian partygoers were gunned down by Ukrainian militants? How many Russian civilians were killed in acts of state terrorism by Ukraine? How many times had Ukraine threatened war against Russia, and threatened its very existence?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course. We know that prior to the invasion of Crimea, none of those things occurred. There were no aggressive acts by Ukraine against Russia.

Palestine on the other hand? Engaged in all of the above (and continue to).

The idea that one situation justified an invasion, and the other didn't, it just utter utter hogwash that no reasonable, sane or moral person holds. It is quite the opposite.

Your views are consistently hypocritical and absurd.

---

I'm rethinking based on new information. Believe it or not, it's a thing.

Ukrainian militias killed tens of thousands of Russians, Poles, and others during postwar insurgencies supported by the US (after massacring thousands of Jews during the war). The neo-Nazi groups operating in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine today exist in a direct line with those groups and share the same purpose, i.e. ethnically cleansing Ukraine and destabilizing Russia.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

So, now you've gone from, the US wasn't justified in entering WWII to maybe. It's interesting how your positions evolve. Quite convenient.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, how many Ukrainian suicide bombers and rockets detonated in Russia? How many times had the Ukrainians conspired with their neighbors to launch an unprovoked military attack on Russia (and actually did so)? How many Russian partygoers were gunned down by Ukrainian militants? How many Russian civilians were killed in acts of state terrorism by Ukraine? How many times had Ukraine threatened war against Russia, and threatened its very existence?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course. We know that prior to the invasion of Crimea, none of those things occurred. There were no aggressive acts by Ukraine against Russia.

Palestine on the other hand? Engaged in all of the above (and continue to).

The idea that one situation justified an invasion, and the other didn't, it just utter utter hogwash that no reasonable, sane or moral person holds. It is quite the opposite.

Your views are consistently hypocritical and absurd.

---

I'm rethinking based on new information. Believe it or not, it's a thing.

Ukrainian militias killed tens of thousands of Russians, Poles, and others during postwar insurgencies supported by the US (after massacring thousands of Jews during the war). The neo-Nazi groups operating in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine today exist in a direct line with those groups and share the same purpose, i.e. ethnically cleansing Ukraine and destabilizing Russia.

---

Well, I am glad to see you've grown, and aren't quite as nuts as you used to be.

The key word in your second paragraph is "postwar." Indeed, Ukraine has engaged in military and subversive acts against the invading force in an attempt to expel it.

Far different from the unprovoked acts of aggression by the Palestinians, and refusal to peacefully coexist. That was of course my point, which you not surprisingly completely ignored.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

So, now you've gone from, the US wasn't justified in entering WWII to maybe. It's interesting how your positions evolve. Quite convenient.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, how many Ukrainian suicide bombers and rockets detonated in Russia? How many times had the Ukrainians conspired with their neighbors to launch an unprovoked military attack on Russia (and actually did so)? How many Russian partygoers were gunned down by Ukrainian militants? How many Russian civilians were killed in acts of state terrorism by Ukraine? How many times had Ukraine threatened war against Russia, and threatened its very existence?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course. We know that prior to the invasion of Crimea, none of those things occurred. There were no aggressive acts by Ukraine against Russia.

Palestine on the other hand? Engaged in all of the above (and continue to).

The idea that one situation justified an invasion, and the other didn't, it just utter utter hogwash that no reasonable, sane or moral person holds. It is quite the opposite.

Your views are consistently hypocritical and absurd.

---

I'm rethinking based on new information. Believe it or not, it's a thing.

Ukrainian militias killed tens of thousands of Russians, Poles, and others during postwar insurgencies supported by the US (after massacring thousands of Jews during the war). The neo-Nazi groups operating in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine today exist in a direct line with those groups and share the same purpose, i.e. ethnically cleansing Ukraine and destabilizing Russia.

---

Well, I am glad to see you've grown, and aren't quite as nuts as you used to be.

The key word in your second paragraph is "postwar." Indeed, Ukraine has engaged in military and subversive acts against the invading force in an attempt to expel it.

Far different from the unprovoked acts of aggression by the Palestinians, and refusal to peacefully coexist. That was of course my point, which you not surprisingly completely ignored.

---

I would suggest educating yourself on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. There's not much else I can say to that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

---

Do you oppose abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, euthanasia and unjust wars like myself?

Of course you don't. See Russia.

---

Well, sure..."just war" to you just means any war the US happens to be involved in.

---

Says the guy who believes the U.S. hasn't been involved in a just war since the war or 1812, but somehow maintains Putin's bloodlust in Ukraine is somehow just.

lol. I'd submit you're severely lacking in credibility on this issue.

---

We've been aggressively expanding our overseas empire for well over a century. I'd have thought such an inveterate isolationist as you would have taken notice. I did support retaliating against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it soon became evident that the war wasn't primarily about that. Again, the situation with Russia and Ukraine is complex. Russia's actions can arguably be justified, but you'd have to apply the Just War Doctrine even-handedly in order to see that.

---

So, Russia and Ukraine is complex, justifying the invasion, but we should have sat out WWII.

Like I said, you have zero credibility on this issue.

---

I'm not sure what we should have done in light of some of the new information that's come out about Hitler's plans for Europe and the West. Rightly or wrongly, we chose to get involved. I would argue the Russians don't have a choice in Ukraine.

My views are consistent. Any country, whether it's the US, Russia, Israel, or whoever, has the right to defend itself with reasonable force. You pick and choose depending on whom you like or dislike. Russia has no legitimate security interests in your view, while Israel has free rein to kill "50 of theirs for every one of ours."

---

So, now you've gone from, the US wasn't justified in entering WWII to maybe. It's interesting how your positions evolve. Quite convenient.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, how many Ukrainian suicide bombers and rockets detonated in Russia? How many times had the Ukrainians conspired with their neighbors to launch an unprovoked military attack on Russia (and actually did so)? How many Russian partygoers were gunned down by Ukrainian militants? How many Russian civilians were killed in acts of state terrorism by Ukraine? How many times had Ukraine threatened war against Russia, and threatened its very existence?

The questions are all rhetorical, of course. We know that prior to the invasion of Crimea, none of those things occurred. There were no aggressive acts by Ukraine against Russia.

Palestine on the other hand? Engaged in all of the above (and continue to).

The idea that one situation justified an invasion, and the other didn't, it just utter utter hogwash that no reasonable, sane or moral person holds. It is quite the opposite.

Your views are consistently hypocritical and absurd.

---

I'm rethinking based on new information. Believe it or not, it's a thing.

Ukrainian militias killed tens of thousands of Russians, Poles, and others during postwar insurgencies supported by the US (after massacring thousands of Jews during the war). The neo-Nazi groups operating in the Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine today exist in a direct line with those groups and share the same purpose, i.e. ethnically cleansing Ukraine and destabilizing Russia.

---

Well, I am glad to see you've grown, and aren't quite as nuts as you used to be.

The key word in your second paragraph is "postwar." Indeed, Ukraine has engaged in military and subversive acts against the invading force in an attempt to expel it.

Far different from the unprovoked acts of aggression by the Palestinians, and refusal to peacefully coexist. That was of course my point, which you not surprisingly completely ignored.

---

I would suggest educating yourself on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. There's not much else I can say to that.

---

I'd suggest educating yourself, if you think the acts of terrorism and aggression by the Palestinians are in any way justified. While neither side are saints, it was the Palestinians (and their neighbors) who chose to start the 1948 war in an attempt to eradicate the newly-formed Jewish state, and did so again in 1967. And since that time, there have been numerous acts of political violence against Israel by an opponent who has vowed the destruction of Israel and refused to peacefully coexist.

The irony is Ukraine hasn't engaged in anything remotely similar, and yet, you somehow believe that was a justified war. Like I said, you're a Putin shiel and a big fan of dictators.