DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 05, 2016, 11:50:17 AM
-
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/12495065_1040277976019636_2078185012645483017_n.jpg?oh=6130f842fee3930b3cf28e7fe38ba562&oe=57BBCDD9)
-
Trump is the candidate of hate. Cruz is pretty hateful as well.
-
LOL.....and validating the cartoon all the more. priceless
-
Mexico sends is rapists, Blacks commit 81% of all crimes committed against Whites. Government is improved by shutting it down, at a cost of millions and not one benefit.
Trump and Cruz are hateful assholes.
-
And the cartoon is again perpetuated. Bravo
-
You are one ignorant fool, sirs. As hateful as the idiotic Republican'ts,
-
.....and again. The cartoon is getting funnier each post ;D
-
Here's another version of the hatred we see coursing thru the left's version of "tolerance" (http://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2016/04/05/why-do-liberals-hate-america-n2143568)
------------------------------------------
The idea of American exceptionalism has been embedded in our collective DNA for generations. It is the faith-based belief that, as Ronald Reagan put it, America is a "shining city on a hill."
Do modern liberals believe that?
I almost never try to get into the other side's head or ascribe ill motives to those on the left. They are, I've always believed, misguided, not malign.
But I'm having second thoughts after listening to Barack Obama's defense of communism/socialism when he was in Argentina. He advised young people to get behind "what works" economically -- as if there is some deep mystery here.
Obama didn't misspeak. The modern left in America really has come to believe that communism, socialism, Marxism and totalitarianism are superior to free-market capitalism.
The president of the United States is supposed to be the global spokesman for free enterprise. But, instead of traveling to Cuba to point out to the world the decades of stagnation, deprivation and dehumanization at the hands of the Castros, and instead of using this moment in history to showcase the triumph of capitalism 90 miles away, Obama praises Cuba's health care and education systems.
He might as well have been praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time. Even more unbelievable: The media applauded.
How far the Democratic Party has fallen. Can anyone imagine Obama, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders having the gumption or wisdom to tell Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"?
It wasn't so long ago that leading Democrats -- JFK, Harry Truman and even the AFL CIO -- were staunch enemies of communism. Today, there is no place for such beliefs within the progressive Democratic Party. If it involves ceding power to the state, the left is all for it -- as evidenced by the rise of Bernie Sanders.
But for every action, there is a reaction, and the left's lunacy has given momentum to the tumultuous uprising on the right this year. Millions of voters who support Donald Trump want our government to put America first and focus on our own mounting problems at home, then worry about Europe, Israel, the melting ice caps, AIDS in Africa and so on. If your house is burning down, you put out that fire and save your own children trapped on the second floor, before you go down the street and put the fire out at your neighbors' house.
Here's just one observational data point that, admittedly, is anecdotal but speaks volumes about the left-right divide in America. At a typical Donald Trump or Ted Cruz rally, you will see American flags waving everywhere. These are patriotic gatherings. At Sanders events, you will see some flags, but not many -- because if you are a leftist, it's not cool to love America. What is much cooler is wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt.
At a Republican rally, you typically meet many veterans who served our country with honor and valor. Some who protest at Trump rallies detest those who are wearing military uniforms and call them fascists and give the Nazi salute. I've seen it happen. I want to grab these brats and shout at them like Jack Nicholson did in "A Few Good Men": "I would rather you just said 'thank you' and went on your way."
Trump voters see America losing both the economic and cultural wars vital to national survival. We have a $19 trillion national debt that has doubled in the past decade. We have wages flat or falling for most Americans. We have a political class that is actively trying to destroy whole industries -- coal production, oil and gas, community banks and so many others.
We have a president (along with the intellectual class) pushing a radical climate change agenda that will cost the middle class millions of jobs, but won't change the global temperature by a hundredth of a degree. Trade deals seem to be drafted to benefit foreign workers and businesses over our own. America pays far more than its share for programs like the United Nations and NATO. Our public schools put teachers first, not kids, and they often don't adequately educate.
We have courts overturning the will of the people in state after state on issues such as gay marriage. We have speech police. We have illegal immigrants who work here and live here and then wave the Mexican flag at rallies, as if to be intentionally offensive. (And I'm in favor of immigration.)
Then they wonder why Americans want a wall.
We have the TSA searching the underwear of infants but letting certain adults pass through without inspection because we wouldn't want to be accused of profiling.
We have a Justice Department thinking about prosecuting people for questioning the climate change "consensus."
This is the same crowd that seems to prefer the economic systems in Sweden and Greece and Cuba over America's. They preach human rights, but they don't seem to understand that economic freedom is a core human right.
-
Not payoing taxes is not "economic freedom".
-
Who's advocating not paying taxes??
And what does that have to do with economic freedom, as explained on the commentary??
???
-
You tell me.
-
Well considering neither I nor the anyone else posting in this thread, including the author of this op-ed. made such a claim, that falls on you to answer, since YOU are the one who brought it up
-
I do drop by from time to time and take a quick look through the thread topics to see if anything interests me enough to read and, possibly, respond. Usually I just move on. It has gotten so sparse in here, one can pretty much look at the title and who started the thread and know what it's going to be. Mostly it's the same old bullshit.
I've been seeing this one for a few days - The Party of Hate! (one must not forget to add the obligatory exclamation point, C4's favorite punctuation) - and, seeing who started the thread, I've given it a pass. I quit bothering to look at C4's crap long ago. To me, he's noise.
Anyway, that title keeps coming back, The Party of Hate! Kinda nagged at me. The more I thought about it...
Well, here's my take on it.
C4, you and the others in here only have to look at your thread titles to get an idea who The Party of Hate is. Muzzies? Really? Making fun of a murdered hitchhiker? Not hard to see which way you lean.
But I digress. Okay, so which party candidate is calling for a fence along our southern border? Which one is calling for barring Muslims? Which party keeps promising, not to reform Obamacare and the health care system, but to repeal it, without offering an alternative? Which party wants to force women to pay for making the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to have the babies - with no provisions for caring for those unwanted children, born more often than not to mother s who have no father in the picture and no means to support the child? Which party is trying to prevent people who are 'different' (the LGBT community) from having the same rights as the 'straight' people? The list goes on, but I'd say if you want to brand one party as The Party of Hate, you'd have to look at the Republican party.
That said, I can't figure out why I bother to keep l looking in here. Hell, even BT seems to have given up on the place. It's always C4 posting stupid pictures, Sirs and X calling names, Plane - well, Plane tries to maintain an even keel, but I hate chasing off site links. Kimba is about the only one I look in on. This used to be a great place, a lot of great members, plenty of topics, opinions, things to talk about. Now it's beyond dying, it's dead. I see guests looking all the time, but never see any join in, and I don't wonder why - if they look and see what I see when I drop in, who can blame them for moving on?
-
Trump has clearly taken on nativist, anti gay and religious fundamentalist topics for the purpose of getting free attention. Trump is a very good huckster, and he uses the media to give him free attention. He is also a hypocrite for saying that he doesn't want supporters money when he is peddling his silly hats at a 300% markup or better and asking for contributions on his website.
Trump uses hate, just as Nixon, Reagan, Wallace, Olebush and Juniorbush did.
-
Mostly it's the same old bullshit.
Wow we had to wait for such a high minded "raise the bar" hypocrite!
I quit bothering to look at C4's crap long ago. To me, he's noise.
Oh my heart is broken...that "you quit looking" but then you still respond.
C4, you and the others in here only have to look at your thread titles to get an idea who The Party of Hate is.
Muzzies? Really? Making fun of a murdered hitchhiker? Not hard to see which way you lean.
Yes I "lean" towards not being fond of those threatening world peace with their daily
world headlines murdering innocent people in the name of their religion and their dumb and/or naive apologists on the Left.
Here are some of the headlines from just this week:
"Religion of Peace" Atrocities of the Week
Atheist Hacked to Death
2016.04.07
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/07/473347159/atheist-law-student-hacked-to-death-in-bangladesh
2016.04.06 (Syria)
A pregnant woman and three children are among over a dozen left dead after terrorists fire rockets into a Kurdish neighborhood.
2016.04.06 (Niger)
Three civilians are reduced to disparate parts by two Fedayeen suicide bombers.
2016.04.05 (Afghanistan)
Children are among six killed when a suicide bomber detonates near a school.
2016.04.04 (Iraq)
A suicide bomber detonates at a restaurant frequented by Shiites, killing at least fourteen.
2016.04.02 (Syria)
Caliphate members murder a man in front of his family and hang from a traffic light.
2016.04.01 (Syria)
A mass grave is discovered containing women and children among other victims of the Islamic State.
Okay, so which party candidate is calling for a fence along our southern border?
Well to begin with the leading Democratic nominee stated late 2015 that she voted numerous times
to build a barrier along the Mexican border to keep illegal immigrants from coming in. So is that "hate"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlFi0QUboxs
Which one is calling for barring Muslims?
None!
Following Muslim inspired terror attacks in Paris, Germany, California, and elsewhere Mr. Trump
proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can better vet who these people are.
So your statement is patently false and inflammatory by design, but not unexpected.
Which party keeps promising, not to reform Obamacare and the health care system,
but to repeal it, without offering an alternative?
So in your warped logic it qualifies as "hate" to repeal an enormous ticking
time bomb that is soon to explode. I own a business and I can tell you
first hand that this is literally about to explode. Hard working people
that had decent healthcare are about to get totally screwed by this
insanity called ObamaCare that ruins the healthcare of the many
to pay for the healthcare of a few.
Of course in typical Washington corruptness many have been given repeated 1 year exemptions from the insanity, but from what we hear surprise surprise guess when the exemptions will end...which will mean implosion...oh the exemptions are supposed to end right as Obama leaves office....how convenient.
Which party wants to force women to pay for making the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to have the babies - with no provisions for caring for those unwanted children, born more often than not to mother s who have no father in the picture and no means to support the child?
No provisions?
The US gvt spends billions on unwed Mothers already.
I don't see Mothers and children on curbs starving,
in fact I personally know unwed Mothers that get all kinds of help public and private.
Plus the unwed Mother is not the only one in the equation.
If Republicans "HATE" the unwed Mother, then you must "HATE" the baby.
(http://s14.postimg.org/scyf945e9/4234868_05fabbcba0.jpg)
By law we protect unborn Bald Eagles, but not unborn humans? Shameful!
This is what HATE really looks like!
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/hedgerow/files/2015/07/abortion2-dismemberment-lifenews.jpg)
That said, I can't figure out why I bother to keep l looking in here. Hell, even BT seems to have given up on the place. It's always C4 posting stupid pictures, Sirs and X calling names, Plane - well, Plane tries to maintain an even keel, but I hate chasing off site links. Kimba is about the only one I look in on. This used to be a great place, a lot of great members, plenty of topics, opinions, things to talk about. Now it's beyond dying, it's dead. I see guests looking all the time, but never see any join in, and I don't wonder why - if they look and see what I see when I drop in, who can blame them for moving on?
Yes this place pretty dead.
Obviously all of us have "moved on" to varying degrees.
I know I have moved on too.
This is one of many places I discuss politics online.
ps:
after your repeated hypocritical insults...
remember this is AFTER....
let it be known that you were never one of my favorites
but I don't really give a shit who you 'like" or "dislike"
I have a great life and at my age i really don't care anymore about such pettiness
2EachHisOwn
-
Plane tries to maintain an even keel, but I hate chasing off site links.
Hmmmmmm....
What seems like a feature to me , seems like a chore to you.
Can you make a suggestion?
-
Well I have stated often I don't care for either party and is not even concern which is worst because at this point a problem is still needs to be fixed and blaming does nothing
-
Well I have stated often I don't care for either party and is not even concern
I agree Kimba...Party means nothing.
-
There is a serious difference between the two parties, and has been since the 1960's. If you cannot see this, then you are blind.
-
There is a serious difference between the two parties, and has been since the 1960's. If you cannot see this, then you are blind.
Of course there are differences, but they are BOTH corrupt as hell.
I would as soon vote for a Conservative in any party.
-
There is a serious difference between the two parties, and has been since the 1960's. If you cannot see this, then you are blind.
Are you blind if you see more than there really is ?
What makes you cut off at the 60'S?
That is when---The Democrats abandoned the racists, that they had previously depended on, at about that time. But rather than set the racists adrift they attached their own entire culture to the Republican party?
You see the Republicans adopting the racist vote at the moment it became weak, why?
The Governors and Statehouses remained Democratic in the South for another whole generation, the presidency changed hands on a regular basis since then with no one depending on racists for that purpose at all.
-
The racists gave up on the Democrats when LBJ gave them the right to vote. They adopted Wallace, then after Wallace was taken out (by a bad man with a gun) they became Reaganauts. Reagan held a special pro-racist rally in 1980 to begin his campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi, known as a place where the cops were racist murderous Klansmen.
-
LOL, high minded as opposed to what? Your gutter bigotry?
Did I hurt widdums feewings?
Sorry, C, called 'em as I see 'em. Your mileage may vary.
Plane, at this stage, it doesn't matter. But suppose Joe Schmoe is fooling around looking for, oh, hell, I don't know, a debate forum. He Googles debate and, viola, there's Debategate. He pops in and takes a look and sees a topic he might be interested in, opens it, and finds - only a link to another site. No article or pics or other description, just a link. Now, it's just me, so don't take it to heart, but I don't tend to go leaping around from link to link. I see a subject title, open the thread, I like to see something on that subject other than just a link. But like I said, that's just me.
This was such a great place once.
-
The difference is not the problem it that both sides are nowhere doing thier job well and they are not aware of it.
My interest is economic and if you stepback and look at the math. Every single politician does not know econ 101. Laffer curve is very important to implement in certain budget but it's not and of course they are shocked the money comes out short.
-
Oops forgot to mention why I ramble about that. What I stated is one of the proof these folks are bad at handling our money. I don't expect the average citizen to know what a laffer curve is but people who handle our taxes has zero excuse.
This is both parties
-
LOL, high minded as opposed to what? Your gutter bigotry?
Yes....like your gutter bigotry hatred that supports this death and disgrace?
Like I said ...you support this shit...this death...this blood and guts..
awee the poor unwed Mother vs. the death and disgrace you support
What a load of crap the high horse you pretend to ride!
(http://www.amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion05.jpg)
Did I hurt widdums feewings?
LOL...yeah sure....you are the thin-skinned one....that can't stand the heat in the kitchen.
oh boo who...I just check in every once in a while ::)
if I was in Iraq I sure as hell wouldn't want you in my Humvee...
you're the kind of guy in High School we had fun with
-
I think, if you look back, you will find I personally don't care for abortion. However, it is an option, a legal one, and until this country can guarantee a loving home, food, shelter, education and medical care to every 'unwanted' child, I support those laws. I don't now, and don't expect to see, hordes of 'Christians' putting their money where their mouth is and guaranteeing those things for unwanted newborns. I guess they don't really care enough to stop the abortions either, they just want something to bitch about so they can look oh-so-righteous.
-
A fetus is not a citizen. A dead fetus is not even a dead citizen.
How many turtle eggs have to hatch so the next generation can proceed? HUNDREDS! That is the way Nature (aka GOD) works. Tough shit baby turtles if most of you are dinner on your first day. Tough shit little dead fetus, you chose the wrong mommy.
-
Turtles don't chose to abort any of their baby turtles either ::)
-
I think, if you look back, you will find I personally don't care for abortion. However, it is an option, a legal one, and until this country can guarantee a loving home, food, shelter, education and medical care to every 'unwanted' child, I support those laws.
1855: I personally don't care for slavery. However, slavery is an option, a legal one, and until this country can guarantee food, shelter, education, and medical care to every slave, I support those laws ::)
-
ouch
-
I wasn't around back then. Next.
-
I think the point is the mindset, H. As in the law is the law, and since its the law, its to be supported, regardless of the ramifications to the person (be it slave or unborn child)
-
The circumstances are quite different. An unwanted child is unable to care for itself; unless the law (or some other entity, such as all those supposed caring Christians I mentioned) steps in, it's future is bleak-to-nonexistant. The slaves, if freed, were not so helpless.
If you want to try to put words in my mouth, at least make sense.
-
The circumstances are only different based on how you personally perceive them. To someone like myself, and Cu4, and plane, the circumstances are quite similar...a person, in this case an ubnorn child, literally comes the property of someone else, and can be discarded.....because....its legal. I'm not putting any words into anyone's mouth, simply pointing to how we can perceive things differently. Just because you opine the circumstances as "quite different", for others, not so much
-
It's a horror...look at this doctor that performed over 1200 abortions and realized the horror
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESqdmQFTNhE
-
You watch it. Then rush out, find a crack addicted poverty stricken pregnant girl who doesn't want her baby and pay for her to stay straight until the baby is born, pay for all the prenatal care, and be there to adopt the baby the moment it's born and raise it in a loving home, providing all food, clothing, medical care, everything until it turns 18.
No?
Then kwitcherbitchin'.
-
There is not a shortage of adoption worthy homes.
Has not been a shortage for thirty years or more.
Does it really solve an orphans problems to kill her?
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.449265.1314598505!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/alg-annie-comic-jpg.jpg)
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/orphan-annie-comic-canceled-tribune-media-services-article-1.449264
-
Plane, at this stage, it doesn't matter. But suppose Joe Schmoe is fooling around looking for, oh, hell, I don't know, a debate forum. He Googles debate and, viola, there's Debategate. He pops in and takes a look and sees a topic he might be interested in, opens it, and finds - only a link to another site. No article or pics or other description, just a link. Now, it's just me, so don't take it to heart, but I don't tend to go leaping around from link to link. I see a subject title, open the thread, I like to see something on that subject other than just a link. But like I said, that's just me.
As an experiment , lets let me take this suggestion to heart for a while.
-
You watch it. Then rush out, find a crack addicted poverty stricken pregnant girl who doesn't want her baby and pay for her to stay straight until the baby is born, pay for all the prenatal care, and be there to adopt the baby the moment it's born and raise it in a loving home, providing all food, clothing, medical care, everything until it turns 18. No?Then kwitcherbitchin'.
what an overly ignorant and illogical statement
there is a shortage of US babies needed for adoption
there are waiting lists
even if there wasn't a shortage all costs are covered by private and public sources
no need to butcher the babies
Then kwitcherbitchin'.
i will never stop spreading the truth against disgraceful immoral support for abortion like yours.
-
There is not a shortage of adoption worthy homes.
Has not been a shortage for thirty years or more.
Does it really solve an orphans problems to kill her?
So, where are all these adoption worthy people at that critical stage before the birth of the baby when the mother needs someone to reassure her her baby will be adopted, loved and cared for; and to take care of the prenatal care, including medical care and any psychological care needed for the mother to overcome any dependency problem she might have? They are not there, for the most part. The mother is left to decide, can she handle all this on her own, or is it better if she just ends it, without outside support. These adoption worthy homes you mention only show up after the fact, after the child is born. By then, if the baby had a drug addict mother, or one that was HIV positive, or if the child is sick from poor prenatal care, who wants to adopt it?
That's why I say start as soon as the woman finds out she is pregnant and has to decide. Encourage her, help her get straight if needed, provide the care she needs for a healthy delivery, and if she still doesn't want the baby, have everything arranged for the adoption to become effective as soon after delivery as possible.
And for my part, let the right to lifers who do all the bitching pay every dime - don't raise my taxes for it.
-
There is not a shortage of adoption worthy homes.
Has not been a shortage for thirty years or more.
Does it really solve an orphans problems to kill her?
So, where are all these adoption worthy people at that critical stage before the birth of the baby when the mother needs someone to reassure her her baby will be adopted, loved and cared for; and to take care of the prenatal care, including medical care and any psychological care needed for the mother to overcome any dependency problem she might have? They are not there, for the most part. The mother is left to decide, can she handle all this on her own, or is it better if she just ends it, without outside support. These adoption worthy homes you mention only show up after the fact, after the child is born. By then, if the baby had a drug addict mother, or one that was HIV positive, or if the child is sick from poor prenatal care, who wants to adopt it?
That's why I say start as soon as the woman finds out she is pregnant and has to decide. Encourage her, help her get straight if needed, provide the care she needs for a healthy delivery, and if she still doesn't want the baby, have everything arranged for the adoption to become effective as soon after delivery as possible.
And for my part, let the right to lifers who do all the bitching pay every dime - don't raise my taxes for it.
All that support is there, and not hard to get .
It is from churches and from taxes , don't be a skinflint , lives are at stake.
-
I agree with Hnumpah.
Leave thew decision up to the pregnant woman. It is her life and her body.
-
I agree with Hnumpah.
Leave thew decision up to the pregnant woman. It is her life and her body.
By what definition of life is the life of her child her life?
-
If that is what she believes, then it is true for her.
It is not up to you, me or the government.
-
If that is what she believes, then it is true for her.
It is not up to you, me or the government.
So there is no objective truth, it is entirely subjective.
The government can prosecute a fetus killer if the mother is unwilling to have the fetus killed , and they call it manslaughter or murder.
They can prosecute a fetus killer if he has not obtained the proper license from the AMA and state, they can call this malpractice , practice without license , manslaughter or murder.
You and I could be drafted to the unfortunate Jury where the fetal killer might defend his action.
Making this always at least potentially a matter that involves you, me, the government and the child and the child's mother.
Then of course we gotta consider how the laws and regulations get written, that is us too.
-
LOL...
If I were called to serve on a jury in such a case, the only consideration is the law in effect at the time and place the act took place. If, under the law, it's a decision legally arrived at and legally carried out, sorry, it's legal.
That's the same standard I would apply to taking a life under any other circumstances.
If all that support is out there, why isn't it working? Why are kids still being born into poverty and despair, to mothers who don't want them? You would think they would be thrilled to give them up to someone who would care for them. Maybe the message isn't getting out.
The local church can send Bible thumping door-knockers to ignore my 'No Soliciting' signs on a regular basis and stuff tracts in my door, but I've never heard or seen one word about outreach to unwed mothers. If they are so concerned about saving babies, maybe they should concentrate on that instead of annoying me.
-
The law is an ass.
Not always , but often enough that the necessity of the law is regrettable.
And Shakespeare gets a chuckle.
I might have inserted here the website I know about that explains jury nullification, except that you in particular would rather I didn't.
The law is deficient in one very important way that affects this question, and several others.
The law includes no firm and clear definition of a person.
-
Oh go ahead, I'm familiar with jury nullification. Not necessarily in favor of it, probably not something I would push for unless I felt particularly strongly about the case.
Depending on your locale, yes, the law does vary as to when a fetus becomes a person. The most common standard I am familiar with is, has the infant drawn a breath? This can be determined, if necessary, by an autopsy examination post mortem to determine if the infant was stillborn, or if it died after birth. Under some state laws, up until the point of drawing breath, the fetus is not considered a human being. There is, as far as I know, no national standard, and since I have had no reason to look it up, I have no idea what the Georgia standard is. Shouldn't be hard to find, though.
One of the nice things is such matters are left to the individual states, as they should be.
-
I do drop by from time to time and take a quick look through the thread topics to see if anything interests me enough to read and, possibly, respond. Usually I just move on. It has gotten so sparse in here, one can pretty much look at the title and who started the thread and know what it's going to be. Mostly it's the same old bullshit.
I've been seeing this one for a few days - The Party of Hate! (one must not forget to add the obligatory exclamation point, C4's favorite punctuation) - and, seeing who started the thread, I've given it a pass. I quit bothering to look at C4's crap long ago. To me, he's noise.
Anyway, that title keeps coming back, The Party of Hate! Kinda nagged at me. The more I thought about it...
Well, here's my take on it.
C4, you and the others in here only have to look at your thread titles to get an idea who The Party of Hate is. Muzzies? Really? Making fun of a murdered hitchhiker? Not hard to see which way you lean.
But I digress. Okay, so which party candidate is calling for a fence along our southern border? Which one is calling for barring Muslims? Which party keeps promising, not to reform Obamacare and the health care system, but to repeal it, without offering an alternative? Which party wants to force women to pay for making the mistake of getting pregnant by forcing them to have the babies - with no provisions for caring for those unwanted children, born more often than not to mother s who have no father in the picture and no means to support the child? Which party is trying to prevent people who are 'different' (the LGBT community) from having the same rights as the 'straight' people? The list goes on, but I'd say if you want to brand one party as The Party of Hate, you'd have to look at the Republican party.
That said, I can't figure out why I bother to keep l looking in here. Hell, even BT seems to have given up on the place. It's always C4 posting stupid pictures, Sirs and X calling names, Plane - well, Plane tries to maintain an even keel, but I hate chasing off site links. Kimba is about the only one I look in on. This used to be a great place, a lot of great members, plenty of topics, opinions, things to talk about. Now it's beyond dying, it's dead. I see guests looking all the time, but never see any join in, and I don't wonder why - if they look and see what I see when I drop in, who can blame them for moving on?
Ok, time to deal with the aborted baby in the room. I hadn't had time to properly respond to this earlier, but I'm going to leave thus up for me to "work on" in order to respond appropriately
1st....about this forum; No, it's not what it used to be. Not close. Is it dead? Of course not, or we wouldn't be posting still, and Bt wouldn't be managing it. It is, as he always explained, what we make it. For those who truly want to debate issues, it's a debate forum. For those who want to vent, its a rant forum. For those who don't have the ability to debate issues regarding policies and peoples they don't agree with, its a name calling forum. What we lack in quantity of posters, we more than make up for in the quality of the postings (at least for those who choose the debate style forum)
2nd....which brings us to Hnumpah. You may not know this H, or didn't notice, given our rather volatile history, whenever WMD's are brought up, but I have made a conscious effort to respond to any of your postings with a goal of trying to be respectful & civil, as possible. Now, its imperative that you grasp that I'm neither putting words in your mouth, nor assigning some false position you've adopted. My comments are directly related to what I've perceived & observed over time, just as your comments directed at this forum and other posters, are what you perceive. With all your qualities of applying criticism to all parties, and not trying to play favorites, you do have one achilles heel....you become extremely defensive when a position you've taken is criticized. You tend to lash out....irrationally at times, with comments like "trying to put words in my mouth". We have alot of things we actually agree on.....but.....since I'm a proud conservative, that's apparently a big strike in your book, since you appear to despise conservatives, and as such, I think you've pre-judged me a tad too early, & more so overtly. Again, just my perception.
3rd....which brings us to the issue before us....who is the party of hate. The cartoon describes the point quite well., while your cherry picking of particulars, like what Trump wants to do, (who is no conservative, btw). It's not some blanket ban of "muzzies", its simply a temporary hold on those coming here from nations known to us to be a haven for Islamic Terrorists. Let me ask you this question.....do you not believe we are at war with a radicalized version of militant Islam?? THAT is a far greater concern to the safety & security of this country than the ruse of global warming. But I digress. You mention Obamacare, which should ABSOLUTELY BE REPEALED, and yes, there are plans ready to be implemented in its stead, but they aren't run by the Government. That's the kicker. I live and breathe the healthcare industry. I'm witness to the significant degrading in the quality of care, by precisely the mechanisms of Obamacare. It can not be reformed, so long as Government is in charge of it....period. That's not hate. That is die-hard concern for the well being of those who are sick, injured, and in need. Obamacare had no design to improve the quality of care or bring down healthcare costs. It's primary function was to dismantle the private sector health, and force more people onto Government services. And the real kicker is that it was designed to fail, so the cry could go out that we simply need to go to some asinine single party payer system where guess who's in charge?....that's right that bureaucratic nightmare referred to as the Federal Government. And what you perceive as hatred of poor women who made some mistake by getting pregnant, to folks like myself, the idea of supporting the killing of an innocent unborn child is beyond hate.....beyond abhorrent. And yes, we do have a multitude of long waiting lists, praying to adopt a child, yet many.....here's a shocker....laws/regulations have been put in place to make adopting next to impossible, especially if the child is of a different race
No, H...I'm afraid the folks in charge of the party of hate, are those that hate any differing opinion or position than their own, and will do whatever is necessary to silence it. But perhaps hate is the wrong word. Perhaps what's more appropriate is the party of intolerance.
In any case, at no time have I tried to cast false intentions upon you, called you names, or put words in your mouth. As i said, I respect your efforts at being even handed at criticizing both parties. You may have missed the many times I've criticized the GOP, including Bush. I think you may have missed the many times both Cu4 & Plane have been overtly critical of the GOP. Probably because they're conservative, would be my guess. Point is, that even conservatives can be rational and critical, of the party that supposedly supports their ideology. So, while you may despise both political parties, the GOP is not the "party of hate" here. Not Cruz nor any of the other candidates that dropped out. Nor does Trump bring hate to the table. He does bring a sense of bullying though. We'll see how far that carries him beyond NY
-
One of the nice things is such matters are left to the individual states, as they should be.
Yes , this would be a step forward in this case.
But there is no state standard that defines a person either.
It is not inconceivable that the government could put an upper limit on the age that a personhood would be recognized.
Why not?
It would solve a few problems.
-
But there is no state standard that defines a person either.
==================================================
Get effing SERIOUS!
Look at your driver's license. Does it not say "Date of Birth"?
In what state does it state "Date of Conception" or "Date of Personhood"?
You are not a citizen until you are born. You are not a legal person until you are a citizen. And each and every state references that date: the Date of birth.
Damn, you clowns are dense.
-
This brings us right back to Dred Scott.
Where the SCOTUS determined that there was no civil rights for people who were not white enough to be full citizens.
This is no better logic than saying there is no person until first breath.
It is practically the same thing.
We should all beware of it , there is nothing about what we are that makes us unassailably human before the law.
-
Okay, first of all, let me make this clear: I do not necessarily agree with every law on the books, whether it is regarding (to name a few favorite subjects in here) gun control, abortion, immigration, drugs, etc cetera. HOWEVER, I do take the stance that the law is the law. If you choose to break it, you should be prepared to suffer the consequences. If you don't like it, then work to change it. Otherwise, live with it.
I spent years traveling to various countries overseas, some with more lenient laws than here, some with much more strict laws. I spent over a year and a half living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under Sharia'a law. I have always found it is a good idea to know what the local laws are as they apply to you, and follow them, whether you like them or not - the punishments for breaking them can be rather strict. Like it or not, their country, their laws, period.
So here's my stance on abortion - it's legal. I don't care for it, I don't think it's the best option, but it's legal. Personally, I don't feel strongly enough about it either way to go poundIng on my congresscritter's door about it. I do see both sides of the argument, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not worth me, personally, getting riled up over it.
Sirs, no sweat, my comment about trying to put words in my mouth wasn't directed at you. By the way, found those WMD's yet?
Now about the original subject, the party of hate thing. I cruise around a bit, visit a few other sites, and here's what I find. The people posting and tossing around names like muzzies, ragheads, camel jockeys, etc (those are a few of the more polite terms) almost invariably identify themselves as Republican or conservative. Most, I find, have no first hand experience with Arab or Muslim culture, have never actually bothered to spend any time visiting a mosque, or associating with or having any sort of discussions with Arabs or Muslims, or bothered to actually read the Quran in context - by that I mean to take it in the context of the time in which it was written. They tend to get all their information second or third hand from right wing sources that spread a lot of inaccurate, incorrect, and even malicious misinformation about Islam.
These are the same people who jumped on the bandwagon after 9/11, clamoring for the war in Iraq over imagined ties to Al Qaeda, imaginary WMD's, et cetera. We all saw how that turned out. These are the people who couldn't wait, who practically begged the government, here, take away some of our rights to privacy, make us take our shoes off before we get on a plane - torture prisoners in our name - machine gun civilians who just happen to be driving behind contractors on the streets of Iraq.
I'm sorry, I'm just a bit leery of turning this country back over to that crowd again. I don't trust them. Conservatism and the Republican party as I knew it don't seem to exist anymore, and what passes for them today does not represent me.
-
Excellent post.
The WMD turns up in Syria.
The same stuff or is it different WMD?
I don't know , I didn't get a copy of the receipt.
I agree that more civility would be an improvement to the Republican party.
But I would not want to leave anyone out of such improvement.
-
The Republican Party does really, really, really stupid things when it is in power, and tries to prevent any and all change when it is not.
They do not keep the peace, they have failed to keep the country safe, and they have not balanced a budget since Eisenhower. They need to be removed entirely from power until the learn how not to be fuckups.
-
Excellent post.
The WMD turns up in Syria.
The same stuff or is it different WMD?
I don't know , I didn't get a copy of the receipt.
I agree that more civility would be an improvement to the Republican party.
But I would not want to leave anyone out of such improvement.
I doubt any of the weapons in Syria came from Iraq, at least under Saddam. Iraq and Syria had strained relations since Saddam came to power, and he had accused Syria of plotting to overthrow him and sealed the border. Syria had grown closer to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, another source of tension.
No, the alleged Iraqi WMD's are still missing, if they ever existed at all, which appears more and more unlikely.
I only put it that way to mollify the true believers.
The Republican Party is 'way beyond any repairs more civility could effect.
And just to point out, I wouldn't trust the Democrats any further than could throw them, either. I would hate for someone to lump me in with them just as badly. Maybe worse.
-
I appreciate the response H, and will only again reference that there's still no proof, what-so-ever, that Bush knew there were no WMD's, but took us to war anyways, completely debunking the notion of Bush lied lied, people died nonsense, not to mention that WMD's were found, both in Iraq and Syria post war, just not near in the #'s that we expected....but that's old news, let's get back to the point of topic....
This quote you provided, is exactly the one that could have been in predominant in the 1700's "....it's legal. I don't care for it, I don't think it's the best option, but it's legal." You reference different circumstances and time, but that's largely to avoid the aborted baby in the room. To folks like myself, who would see the killing of an unborn child beyond hate, would also be the ones fighting for the freedom of slaves, despite it "being legal". Based on what you've said, its apparent you're not a mass supporter of abortion, but you don't seem to have an issue with it, because, as you said, its legal, which is fine. The issue I have with you is how overtly callous you are at those don't support it. We do have mechanisms to take care of an unwanted child. We do have long waiting lists for adoption. For those women who chose reckless irresponsible behavior that result in an unwanted pregnancy, its not trying to "punish her" to give birth. Her "punishment" would be in watching that child being adopted by a family that truly wants a child. That she'd have lo live with for the rest of her life. No, the true hatred is in disposing of an unborn child, because it would become an inconvenient problem
Now, as it relates to the Muslim issue......I absolutely have zero experience in traveling anywhere, even remotely Islamic. My only true connections with Islam are some of my fellow co-workers, who are proudly Muslim in their faith, and wonderful people to work with. This is the frequent area where the attempt to discredit or condemn folks like myself, or perhaps even Cu4, is by lumping the issue of the war we have on radicalized Jihadists into a supposed war against all of the Muslim world. Not that is your intent, simply pointing out a frequent effort by folks like xo, and other leftists. It's much like when illegal immigration comes up, the cry is how folks like myself don't support immigration, when its not about immigration, its about ILLEGAL immigration. Same scenario here, and speaking for myself. its not about Muslims (or muzzies), its about radical militant Muslims, who've decided to mutate the message of Islam, to justify every sort of killing to innocent men women, and children, who have not converted or agreed to be subjugated by their twisted reading of the Koran. I may have missed the answer to the question I posed to you earlier...do you not believe we are at war with a radicalized version of militant Islam??. That's an important answer to any follow-up
Yes, the GOP has many a moment of incivility, disrespect, and yes, even hate. But if this is an issue about comparing parties...the one that embraced the KKK in its founding, and the one that currently supports any and all means to shut down speech & constitutionally protected actions they don't agree with, is not the GOP, I'm afraid to say
-
Sorry, I'm a callous son of a bitch. If all these wonderful mechanisms are in place, all these people are out there waiting for the chance to jump in with any troubled, pregnant girl and give her the emotional, physical, medical, psychological and financial support she needs to carry her pregnancy to term and deliver a baby for them to adopt, where are they? Who are they? How do these women find them? Hey, if i'm selling product X, I want to advertise, get the word out, hey, there's this over here, come see me and get some. For a mother of a baby she doesn't want and is considering what to do with it, I don't see any outreach. The doorbanging Bible thumpers don't leave tracts or information about anything like that. The antiabortion crowd want to shut down the clinics and write angry letters and wave bloody pictures, but how many of them do you see adopting crack babies? And C4 wants to call me a hypocrite?
Moving on - we are at war with terrorists, yes, and they claim to be Islamic. Yes, we need to do something about illegal immigration. But the people that go on about both issues, the ones, as I said before, who nowadays tend to identify themselves as Republican, conservative, right wing - these are the ones I find most likely to use the racial and religious slurs, the bigotry, and propose the most outlandish solutions. I don't forget, also, that it was under their administration that the American people were conned into giving up some of their freedoms and rights, or sending troops to fight and die in an unnecessary and unjustified war that we are still paying the price for, in physically and psychologically disabled veterans, in equipment left behind to be captured and used by our enemies, and the ill will against Americans we left behind in the aftermath. We had a much better chance of a quicker, positive outcome in Afghanistan if we had stayed focused on our objective there, rather than making up excuses to go into Iraq.
And that's where the Republicans lost me. It has been downhill from there.
-
The Republican Party should apologize for being such dicks.
It should hide its face in shame and beg forgiveness.
-
I doubt any of the weapons in Syria came from Iraq, at least under Saddam. Iraq and Syria had strained relations since Saddam came to power, and he had accused Syria of plotting to overthrow him and sealed the border. Syria had grown closer to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, another source of tension.
No, the alleged Iraqi WMD's are still missing, if they ever existed at all, which appears more and more unlikely.
I only put it that way to mollify the true believers.
I think it is quite likely the same stuff, though it is not unlikely either that Assad was buying his own and so it is not the same stuff. So I haven't proof nor certainty.
This is the kind of thing that Saddam might do, please recall that when his Air Force was being destroyed he gave a lot of it to Iran. This had nothing to do with love for Iran, he was only winning in that these planes would be in the hands of an enemy of the USA instead of being destroyed.
-
If all these wonderful mechanisms are in place, all these people are out there waiting for the chance to jump in with any troubled, pregnant girl and give her the emotional, physical, medical, psychological and financial support she needs to carry her pregnancy to term and deliver a baby for them to adopt, where are they? Who are they? How do these women find them?
A simple Google search can connect un-wed Mothers to organizations like those listed below that are operating across the United States. Also a telephone call to churches across the country can be helpful as far as information on where to receive help.
http://mercyhouse.org/
http://www.thematernityhome.org/
https://www.covenanthouse.org/homeless-youth-programs/mother-child-teenage-pregnancy-help
http://www.divinemercyhouse.org/our-plan/
http://perrycenter.org/
http://lifehousehouston.org/
http://www.provplace.org/programs/adoption-programs/birth-mothers/
http://www.homeformothers.com/do-you-need-a-new-beginning.html
http://www.harborhouse.org/
https://www.shelteringgrace.org/
-
I think...although he can correct me if I'm wrong, that H provided multiple parameters that he wanted to include for the unborn child's mother....that of apparently choosing a specific mother, and literally taking care of them in every way. It's not about adopting the child as much as taking care of the mother prior to birth. And he's right, in that there isn't the same support system for the mother, as there is for the unborn child. Only the uber rich can afford to care for the mother in the way that I believe H would want the mother to be cared for. And since that's not happening (nor could it), then deference should be given to the mother as to if she should be made to carry the child to term. Am I correct in that assumption, H?
The problem is that the very nature of conservatism is the idea of individual responsibility. It's the old parable about giving someone a fish and they eat for the day, vs teaching someone to fish, and they eat for a lifetime. I don't support the notion of rewarding irresponsible behavior. But with the life of an unborn child I would support some assistance to the mother, in matters of some financial assistance, and a significant amount of healthcare assistance. If she would like some psychological counseling, that could be arranged for as well. But no, we're not about to subsidize her reckless decision making. As Cu4 has provided, there are a multitude of agencies and organizations primed to assist pregnant women, in many ways, and as already referenced before, waiting lists for unwanted newborn children. They exist, and thus we can stop the slaughter of unborn children, due to inconvenience
And as it relates to this supposed conservative wing of the GOP being a mass of bigots, is severely misplaced, IMHO. A simple wall isn't an outlandish solution. Nor is a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants wanting entrance into this country from countries ripe with terrorist training and/or activity. That's hardly hatred....its a rational suggestion at this time, in a war against Islamic terrorists, that you concede is occurring. We're not going to rehash the WMD debacle again, since its patently clear we're going to agree to disagree, as in its a fact that's there's no proof that Bush knew there were no WMD but took us to war anyways, but to the point, the party of "hatred" is the not the one attempting to better defend its citizens in this country, both living & unborn. It's the one that, as I referenced already, was the foundation for the beginnings of the KKK, and is now the party of intolerance to anything that doesn't agree or support their ideological agenda
-
No matter what you might support for a poor unwed mother, it is still her body and her decision. Not yours and not the governments.
The rich pregnant woman can get an abortion anywhere she wishes.
If you want to call; abortion "murder", then as Trump says, the woman who chooses an abortion is a murderer and the doctor is a hitman, a paid killer. In El Salvador, every miscarriage is investigated as a possible murder, and many women have been jailed as murderers/ Even if the pregnancy was due to rape, women are jailed for attempting to abort themselves
The term "unborn child" continues to be invalid. The word is fetus and the fetus has no rights. Nature agrees with this, as evidenced by the way that some species give birth to hundreds and thousands of young at a single pop, and only a very few survive.
God has very little compassion for the newborn of any species.
This whole thing is simply due to the attitude that women are chattel and have no freedom to make their own decisions. If men got pregnant, abortion would be entirely legal and perhaps a religious ritual.
-
C, all I can tell you is get the word out. Not everyone has a computer or a 'smart' phone to Google website, or in some cases even a phone. Face it, a drug addict isn't worried about paying for such things, she just wants her next score. I applaud their efforts setting up such services, but they need to be proactive about getting the word out.
Another thing that might help is for the religious right to stop opposing sex education in schools. I know, it's something the parents themselves should be teaching their kids before it ever becomes an issue, but let's face it, it ain't happening. Better they should learn somewhere where they can get the correct facts and information before it becomes a problem, either through an unexpected pregnancy or an STD.
Sirs, you're pretty close, except I wouldn't call it rewarding the girl for getting pregnant. It's an opportunity for prospective adopted parents to insure the baby gets the proper prenatal care and is born healthy, so they aren't getting a drug addicted baby or one with other medical problems caused by poor health care during the pregnancy. Yes, it would be an opportunity for the mother to get any medical care or treatment she needed to overcome a drug problem, or get off the streets, or otherwise come out the other end with a chance at a decent life, but for nine months carrying a child she is going to turn over to someone else, I wouldn't use the word reward. I'd say for those who feel so strongly about stopping abortion, it's a good trade.
-
Let us say a couple has a baby in the normal manner. The woman will experience discomfort, and there will be medical bills that someone will have to pay.
Option 1: If they cannot have their own child, then they can find a surrogate mother and probably at least one of the couple will be able to have a genetic contribution. There will be a matter of paying support and doctor bills and probably outrageous legal fees to set up the "adoption" of the sponsored child.\
If they contact a woman who is already pregnant, the costs connected with option 1 will still apply. So it is going to cost more for either option 1 or option 2. But in both cases, the woman of the couple will have none of the symptoms of pregnancy and she will be able to work until the child is transferred to her. That is surely worth something.
-
Sirs, you're pretty close, except I wouldn't call it rewarding the girl for getting pregnant.
Subsidizing the repercussions of her actions would be. Putting that aside, you seemed to be focused on some 1 on 1 scenario, where I guess its about some couple pre-choosing a mother. Some financial support would be ok. Obviously healthcare support, and perhaps even some psychological/financial couseling would be prudent. Anything beyond that is perfectly ok as well, if the parents to be wish to provide that extra. But not at tax payer's expense. As we've seen, there's a laundry list of organizations that are designed specifically to assist the mother, during her pregnancy, and in giving birth, including aide and counseling
Or, she can chose to act more responsibly, and use protection. The unborn child here is the victim. Not the drug addicted judgement impaired mother
-
...But not at tax payer's expense...
I think I mentioned that.
The unborn child in that scenario is not the victim, either. It's win-win-win - the mother gets a chance to get her life straightened out, the baby gets a home, and the adoptive parents get their baby.
Or are you saying now the unborn baby's life is worth more than the mother's? Just asking.
-
...But not at tax payer's expense...
I think I mentioned that.
The unborn child in that scenario is not the victim, either. It's win-win-win - the mother gets a chance to get her life straightened out, the baby gets a home, and the adoptive parents get their baby.
Or are you saying now the unborn baby's life is worth more than the mother's? Just asking.
Good to see we agree on the taxpayer portion. And no, the unborn baby's life isn't "worth more". It is innocent however, in that it has no choice in the matter of its life. He/she has no options, no support system, in other words, its as vulnerable as a life can be. Under these circumstances, its most definately a victim in this situation, which is why you see such vehement support for that child's life, from the likes of me & others. I hope & pray the mother gets her life straightened out, but ultimately that has to be her choice to want to make a better life for herself. The unborn child is getting no choice in the matter
-
The term "unborn child" continues to be invalid.
Do you know what Adhesive Capsulitis is, xo? It's another term for a Frozen Shoulder. Do you know what an Uncle Charlie is in baseball, xo? It's another term for a curveball
Do you know what a Fetus in a human is? ITS ANOTHER TERM FOR AN UNBORN CHILD
::)
-
It is not a child until is is born.
Do you go the the supermarket and buy a carton of a dozen uncooked omelets? Or three pounds of future hamburger patties.
-
It is not a child until is is born.
Do you go the the supermarket and buy a carton of a dozen uncooked omelets? Or three pounds of future hamburger patties.
No, I get my uncooked omelets a half dozen at a time, and my future burgers already in patties.
-
It is not a child until is is born.
Tell that to the mother who just lost one to a pre-birth complication. A guarantee you its a child, in every way shape and form to those parents. That's why its called an unborn child >:(
-
Do you go the the supermarket and buy a carton of a dozen uncooked omelets? Or three pounds of future hamburger patties.
No, I get my uncooked omelets a half dozen at a time, and my future burgers already in patties.
Love me some tri-tip 8)
-
The term "unborn child" continues to be invalid. The word is fetus and the fetus has no rights.
You skip a lot of steps to say this ,why does the law respect the humanity of anyone , what is a human?Nature agrees with this, as evidenced by the way that some species give birth to hundreds and thousands of young at a single pop, and only a very few survive.
This is a common strategy for insects , fish and rabbits. Human beings do not fit this pattern in any respect . A new human requires a lot of work and attention to develop and they tend to show up one or two at a time .God has very little compassion for the newborn of any species.
I don't agree, if you want to observe Nature for examples why not observe whales rather than fleas?
Whale calves get a lot of milk and a lot of individual attention from their mother, most whales travel in family groups (pods)and the adults are protective of the young .
With nature providing a pattern of intelligent and long lived creatures investing more time and effort and creatures of short lifespan and trophic behaviors investing little in their individual young, why would you aspire to imitate the guppy rather than the whale?
God produced a balanced world that can run on its own homeostasis, although there is a pattern of more developed creatures making prey of lesser ones , the greatest creatures wind up feeding the least developed ones to make the food chain perfectly circular.
Perhaps you could design something better , but I don't think I could.
-
So now you want to get Congress pass a law in which the government can prevent whales from getting abortions?
-
Oy vey........where did ANYONE, much less Plane reference, that Whales will sometimes seek abortions, rather than care for their young, Dr Deflection??
-
I did not bring up whales.
I just was pointing out how ridiculous it was to bring them up.
Whales are mammals.
Mammals have hair,
SHAVE THE WHALES!!!!
-
There's nothing ridiculous in demonstrating how different mothers care for their young. Humans are much closer to whales than turtles, when it comes to how many young they have, and how they care for them
And NEWS FLASH.....no turtle OR whale, choose an abortion
-
Maybe they can, maybe they cannot.
But if that is because they can't, it is due to a lack of technical ability.
When female cats decide they do not want to mess with a kitten, she eats it.
-
I did not bring up whales.
I just was pointing out how ridiculous it was to bring them up.
Whales are mammals.
Mammals have hair,
SHAVE THE WHALES!!!!
I agree that basing proper human behavior on animal behavior is ridiculous.
There are animals doing everything , we certainly should not copy some of them, nor copy any of them on the basis that they are "natural" as if natural is a virtue of itself.
Some animals have some behaviors that Humans do well to emulate , thanks Aesop.
Some animals have behaviors that would be dangerous , impossible or disgusting for humans to emulate.
So why did you bring it up?
-
Maybe they can, maybe they cannot.
But if that is because they can't, it is due to a lack of technical ability.
When female cats decide they do not want to mess with a kitten, she eats it.
So, using your twisted deflection technique. ....are you saying abortion is ok, so long as the mother eats the child??
See how ridiculous the attempt was to imply whales could choose abortion if they had the wherewithal? And do you why mom cats sometimes eat their newborn kitten? Here's a hint... the kitten is already dead, as in there was no abortion to begin with. ::)
-
God has very little compassion for the newborn of any species.
I don't agree,
=============================================
Of course not. You were brainwashed as an infant.
God has recently shown compassion with the Zika virus, which causes newborns to be microcephalic, which means they will need to be cared for all their lives.
God just oozes compassion: malaria, AIDS, Guinea worms, elephantiasis, cancer, Altzheimers. All part of the Great Circle of Being.
-
I feel for you xo. I can see you being that character in the Matrix...the fella that wants so bad to get plugged back into the matrix, where everything is perfect...as far as he believes. of course.
-
God has very little compassion for the newborn of any species.
I don't agree,
=============================================
Of course not. You were brainwashed as an infant.
God has recently shown compassion with the Zika virus, which causes newborns to be microcephalic, which means they will need to be cared for all their lives.
God just oozes compassion: malaria, AIDS, Guinea worms, elephantiasis, cancer, Altzheimers. All part of the Great Circle of Being.
Dread diseases are not new , not ignored in scripture.
You would believe in God if he had built the world more as you like?
-
The fact that diseases are mentioned in scripture in no way makes then acceptable.
-
To humans perhaps. Point being your attempt to "understand" God is pure human. Humans, are by nature, inquisitory, and given our higher brain function than most every other animals on this globe, allows us to actively think, perform research, scientific even
God is none of that, so its impossible to "understand God". God is, and that's it. You either have faith, or you don't. Its your choice, and that's the best of it....you're not obligated to believe. Do you see anyone who has a walk with God, ridiculing your lack of one?? laughing at your lack faith? Making jokes? No you don't. But boy oh boy, look at the somersaults you perform in trying to ridicule and demean someone's faith
God is, that's it. Bad things happen, and yes, God allows it. But God teaches those who have faith, that there's nothing too great that we can't handle. Bad things also happen, to provide greater perspective of when good things happen. And again, the best part is, you're not required to believe that. Why you find it so necessary to demean and ridicule that, which no one of faith does to you, is quite.......illuminating
-
The fact that diseases are mentioned in scripture in no way makes then acceptable.
Imagine a world without them.
Perhaps no curses at all, imagine that.
Perhaps just one language for us all too, so misunderstanding is reduced.
Would you continue imagining this better and easier , until there was nothing noble for anyone to do?
-
Actually I believe several mammals has been know to terminate their pregnancy when extreme situations occurs. I was a vet major so I got some knowledge in this area. So yes animals can abort babies .Come to think of it I suspect those ealier prolife protesters may of caused some stressed induced miscarriage by yelling at pregnant women.
It's a strange human behavior to inflict such emotional trauma on another. Not just pregnant woman. I'm say this because I've experienced a panic attack and as benign and lame as it sounds it's actually quite dangerous
-
It was certainly a great thing when people did away with smallpox. Leprosy is a very rare thing as well.
Maybe Jesus cured a dozen lepers. Medical science has all but abolished the disease.
The Power of Prayer wasn't effective in the long run.
You have to seek out and furgle sick armadillos to catch it now.
We are all still mortal, we have a long ways to go to improve our lot.
-
Didnt genetics came from a priest who study the results of cross breeding plants?
-
We are all still mortal, we have a long ways to go to improve our lot.
Who ever claimed we wern't ???
-
Gregory Mendel was the first person to scientifically elaborate on genetics using plants, bit before that, there was a long tradition of breeding horses, mules, cattle and other livestock that goes back over a thousand years. There is mention of white and varicolored sheep in the Bible, and the Hebrews were not as sophisticated at livestock as other groups.
Maybe at some point, someone will figure out how to cross a narwhal with a horse and produce a unicorn.
I can see zoos of griffins, unicorns, dragons and other mythical beasts as a part of amusement parks.
I don't think we need werewolves, though. Shape shifting critters are probably impossible.
Maybe Disney or Universal will have a unicorn petting zoo.
Werewolves and Vampires do not belong in petting zoos.
Only small, docile dragons.
-
After we cure the major diseases, life prolongation is the next target for genetics. Trees and maybe some sea creatures live for over 100 years.
Science will continue to march on.
Science will advance a few steps forward, religion will back up a few steps, This has been going on since the Renaissance.
Science is not perfect, but it is more effective than prayer.
-
Science is not perfect, but it is more effective than prayer.
That depends on what you're praying for. For instance, I pray for the gift of rational thought to be extended to you, at some point in time. I doubt science will make any breakthroughs in that goal, so prayer will have to do.
But I'll make sure to pass on your "knowledge" to all those family members I see at the hospital, praying over their loved one, who is sick or dying, and making sure they realize just how futile they're acting
-
I did not say prayer was futile. It makes the people who pray feel that they are being useful. That is good for them
Some people need religion, as I have said many times. The one legged need crutches.The legless need wheelchairs.
It does not, and many a study have shown this, however, cure the sick.
Indications that it has done this and are anecdotal, rather than based on rational science.
Prayer is not rational behavior. I can be useful, but it is emotional, not based on fact, which is why it is not rational.
-
I did not say prayer was futile.
Sure you did.....the implication was clear. Religion, Christianity in particular, is moronic dogma, based on some unloving incomprehensible God. So, by direct connection, prayer itself is a futile endeavor, in bringing about healing from suffering
And here's a kicker you're sure to claim is made up by myself....I was diagnosed with Diabetes, when I was in my teen years. Blood tests & blood sugars confirmed it. Had to go on a specialized diet, but wasn't to the point where I had to give myself daily insulin shots. I went to a large Christian rally. There, my Uncle asked me if I really wanted to be rid of the Diabetes. I said of course. He asked me to pray with him, I did, and the next time I was seen by the Doctor, my blood sugars were normal, and have been so since. Doctors couldn't explain it. And yes, that's 100% what happened to me. So you can poo poo prayer, all you want. It can, and does lead to healing & cure....IF that's in God'a plan
-
As I said, anecdotal.
Perhaps the first diagnosis was erroneous.
-
MULTIPLE tests confirmed the diagnosis, including a extremely uncomfortable 12 hour blood test, where they had to take blood every hour
-
Imagine that!
-
Here, sadly, is where I have to take the side of those who pray, sort of.
So, X is of the opinion science alone has been responsible for advances in medical science, such as diagnostics, treating injuries, fighting infections, all the way up to nearly eradicating some diseases such as smallpox, leprosy, plague, and so on. And actually, I agree with him, and more - some of these advances were made in spite of religion. However, playing the devil's advocate here for a moment...
There is no way to prove, or disprove, whether or not prayer had anything to do with the advances in medical science. First of all, when the Bible speaks of answering prayer, a.) It does not assure you you will get the answer you want; sometimes the answer is NO; and b.) The answer may not come right away. So, say, all those people who prayed for an end to leprosy, who's to say they didn't get it? Maybe not in time for them, or their loved one who had it, but here we are. Same for smallpox, infections, and on and on. So one cannot categorically state that prayer doesn't work. Of course, the opposite is true as well.
That's the advantage of at one time being one of 'them' and studying for the ministry - I can see both sides. My choice, however, is my own.
Carry on.
-
Imagine that!
Actually, no imagination necessary. Just 2 very painful arms after all that, that made it almost impossible to lift a fork to eat
-
There is no way to prove, or disprove, whether or not prayer had anything to do with the advances in medical science. First of all, when the Bible speaks of answering prayer, a.) It does not assure you you will get the answer you want; sometimes the answer is NO; and b.) The answer may not come right away. So, say, all those people who prayed for an end to leprosy, who's to say they didn't get it? Maybe not in time for them, or their loved one who had it, but here we are. Same for smallpox, infections, and on and on. So one cannot categorically state that prayer doesn't work. Of course, the opposite is true as well.
100% accurate
-
Actually I believe several mammals has been know to terminate their pregnancy when extreme situations occurs.
I guess that is one way to look at it.
The other way might be that successful pregnancy has strict requirements.
-
Not that strict since these are are extreme situations.
The power of prayer should not be discounted but one needs to be careful not to ignore standard treatments. So far in religious matter people has been respectful about my condition and how I do things. But the alternative medicine folks has been quite aggressive in trying to get me off my meds.
These folks are not very responsible. I swear every vitamin store clerk thinks they have comparable medical knowledge to tell people to stop taking medication.
-
But the alternative medicine folks has been quite aggressive in trying to get me off my meds.
These folks are not very responsible. I swear every vitamin store clerk thinks they have comparable medical knowledge to tell people to stop taking medication.
I can agree with that.
You cannot cure every condition with vitamins and minerals.
-
i have a fatal stress relate condition and so far only my primary has suggested lifestyle change to cut my stess. all these others suggest some pill or some bad tasting plant to eat. which to me says have a crappy sad life as long as you eat ginger and kale.
-
Kale is not bad tasting. It has no taste at all. It is not bad if you substitute it for cabbage in a colcannon recipe. You can mix it with spinach in a spinach cheese and rice casserole, add some mozzarella and maybe some sesame oil.
-
Kale has a lot in common with cabbage , and it is easy to garden.
If you plant Kale before midsummer you can keep harvesting it until the winter is almost over.
-
Kale reacts badly to my meds and its on some internet list to avoid if your on some cholesteral med. people have a very hard time thinking certain high reputation food can can have bad reactions.
Ive told to give up my meds so I can eat kale. I got serious doubts about the wisdom of that advice. Also I had kale and it just eating waxy leaves to me. I Like cabbage alot more and I eat that often
-
Kale is not that great as a food, in my opinion. Cabbage, cauliflower and Brussel Sprouts and such are all better tasting.
-
I actually get bruises and makes my blood watery
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2013/11/don-t-mix-your-meds-with-these-foods/index.htm
-
I think giving up your medications that work in order to replace it with kale would be a really bad idea.
-
Kale has a lot of vitamin K.
So it is an antidote to Warfarin, Cumoden .
If you are fighting thrombosis, Kale is especially bad, it makes a huge dose of Warfarin necessary for the anticlotting action to happen.
On the other hand , if your blood is not clotting enough , you might want more vitamin K.
-
What is it with the way they named Vitamins?
There is only one A, I guess a dozen B's from B-1 to B -1. One C, I think three D's and an E.
I have not heard of Vitamins G, H, I, or J ,but, as you say, there is a K.
They use the Greek alphabet for waves and rays, and names for things of which there are seven: Dwarves, Deadly Sins, United Arab Republics and days of the week.
-
That is a good story actually, in the main the vitamins were named in the order in which they were discovered, each one has a chemical name for greater precision (Thiamine for example ) but I can only recall a few of these.
Let me see if a web search will find a better source than my memory.
The discovery of the vitamins.
Here we go, this looks like a good one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23798048Abstract
The discovery of the vitamins was a major scientific achievement in our understanding of health and disease. In 1912, Casimir Funk originally coined the term "vitamine". The major period of discovery began in the early nineteenth century and ended at the mid-twentieth century. The puzzle of each vitamin was solved through the work and contributions of epidemiologists, physicians, physiologists, and chemists. Rather than a mythical story of crowning scientific breakthroughs, the reality was a slow, stepwise progress that included setbacks, contradictions, refutations, and some chicanery. Research on the vitamins that are related to major deficiency syndromes began when the germ theory of disease was dominant and dogma held that only four nutritional factors were essential: proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and minerals. Clinicians soon recognized scurvy, beriberi, rickets, pellagra, and xerophthalmia as specific vitamin deficiencies, rather than diseases due to infections or toxins. Experimental physiology with animal models played a fundamental role in nutrition research and greatly shortened the period of human suffering from vitamin deficiencies. Ultimately it was the chemists who isolated the various vitamins, deduced their chemical structure, and developed methods for synthesis of vitamins. Our understanding of the vitamins continues to evolve from the initial period of discovery
-
Yes huge dosage of vitamin k is bad for me but smaller amounts seems ok so far.
Ginger gives me chest pains .
It almost seems anything popular for people health is bad for me.
Good thing spam is safe for me to eat so far
-
Organic chemistry is made difficult by extremely long names of compounds.
Pharma companies are not always helpful with the names they make up for their products. They are very fond of the letter X, which variously has the sound of gs as in exam, ch in Greek, and z in other languages. It suggests both sex and experimentation.