DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on January 09, 2015, 01:15:45 PM
-
Rubio does not approve, Scott does not approve, Attorney General and prominent nut Pam Bondi does not approve., but now we have female husbands and male wives in Florida and Key West and Miami become honeymoon sites.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/florida (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/florida)
Any day now, sirs can come to Kissimmee and marry an Airedale. A male Airedale. ;D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
Once again the people are over-ruled by an unelected Clinton appointed judge!
-
That's how it works with the lunatic left. Screw the people & rule of law, they just "know better"
-
There is nothing to know. This is not about knowing anything. It is simply about equal rights for everyone.
There is no more reason why an election should decide this than it should have decided against segregation, interracial marriage or drinking alcohol.
-
Sure it is about "knowing anything". The people spoke, the law was passed, and 1 liberal judge decides he simply knows better
-
That is because he DOES know better. He knows that everyone is equal, and therefore has equal rights.
It is pretty obvious that if they held elections about segregation in Alabama and Mississippi in 1965, there would have been a majority that agreed with Governor Wallace: "Segregation THEN, Segregation Now, Segregation Forevah!"
And that would have been a violation of the rights of Black people, just as a denial of the right to marry would have been a violation ot =the rights of gays.
You cannot win this argument, because you are simply wrong.
-
So, I was right. Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making about the lunatic left
-
Further down the slippery slope.
Can we really have a society without any mores?
-
People who love each other being recognized as married has nothing at all to do with mores.
Nothing at all.
Bigots believing that somehow their personal religious beliefs are mores is what sucks here.
Notice how many of the Ten Commandments never made it into the Constitution. People cannot be arrested for believing more than one or three Gods(depending), no one gets jailed for not keeping the Sabbath holy, whatever that means, and people with abusive parents cannot be disparaged for refusing to honor them.
There is a reason for that. Your religion does not belong in the laws of this country.
Get a clue.
-
So you really are ok with guys marrying their animals? Siblings? Rocks?
No mores at all, no limits at all, in law or in social acceptance?
-
I do not think that anyone is advocating marrying animals or rocks. I was just kidding about sirs marrying an Airedale.
This is not any reason to conclude that there are no moral guidelines anymore. It is simply a recognition that the Church, which was never the moral arbitrator in the US is now one bit less powerful.
I would say forcing people to work 12 hours or more before Christmas or lose their jobs is the real moral issue that the Church should address. Recognizing Adams' right to marry Steve could not harm anyone buy perhaps Adam and Steve.
-
So who is hurt by Steve marrying his Airedale?
Abandoning our Christian (and Jewish) based mores seems like a mistake, even if we do so one more at a time.
-
Here are the Ten Commandments:
1 You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 You shall not make idols.
3 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5 Honor your father and your mother.
6 You shall not murder.
7 You shall not commit adultery.
8 You shall not steal.
9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 You shall not covet.
We have never tried to encode in the Constitution Commandments 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10.
Attempts to encode 4 have largely failed. Jews and Adventists celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday, Christians on Sunday, Muslims on Friday. There have been Blue Laws against stores selling stuff on Sunday, but about all that is left of this are laws against selling booze before noon.
Adultery is one of several grounds for divorce, but is not penalized otherwise.
Perjury, lying under oath, is penalized, as is fraud and libel to some degree.
So of the Ten Commandments, we no longer enforce over half. Marriage is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. Neither is abortion or gun control.
Although morality is connected to religions, civil morality is now and always had been a matter for legislation rather than religion. Being as we have a lot of religions in the US, and none of them is in any way official, I do not see how recognizing gay marriage affects anyone but gay people.
I have no objections to Steve or Eve marrying Airedales, but I imagine that ridicule would be the main social constraint against it. I am against people claiming their pets as dependents on their income taxes. Imagine what claiming all the ants in one's ant farm as dependents could do to a Form 1040.
Most religions are based on a fairly obvious premise that humans are the moral center of the Universe and the justification for its existence and the epitome of its existence. We are some sort of special hobby of God's, and were created as sort of special pets, and occupy the center of Creation.
Any astronomer can tell you that we are not at the Center of anything. We are land creatures who dwell on a rather small planet most covered by water located on a trailing arm of a rather ordinary galaxy. An infinite Universe can have no center, and it is likely that there is more than one infinite Universe.
We seem to have invented religions to give a sense of order to our existence as well as to inflate our egos. That does not mean that God does not exist or does exist. The odds that most of the beliefs of most religions, however, such as virgin birth, miracles, a finite series of prophets, the divine endorsement of The Ark of the Covenant, the Koran, Bible, Book of Mormon, are against any of these and similar things being part of the structure of the Earth or the Universe.
-
Nothing requires "encoding", they are simply parameters to living a Christian live. No more, no less. There's nothing to enforce, as the point that's been made countless times about Christianity is the choices one makes...to live the example of a Christ-like life.....or not. To accept Christ as your savior.....or not. ::)
-
Accepting LittlebabyJeezus is unrelated to Adam marrying Steve.
I would not think that Jesus, who talked mostly about turning the other cheek, would have been all that fond of you "Christians" constantly railing about your sacred right to own guns. In the NT, Jesus got angry twice as I recall: once because the exchange rates for temple money in the Temple were too high, and again at a fig tree for failing to have figs handy when he was Jonesing for a fig. On neither occasion did he express his anger with even a knife.
I have observed that Christians do not seem to emulate Jesus' behavior here. I have yet to hear about even a nutball preacher throwing a fit at the usurious rates at Deak Pereira's Airport Currenvcy exchanges. And I have yet to see even a very devout Christian ranting against an unproductive fruit tree.
-
Excellent posting , this is a lot to cover.
So of the Ten Commandments, we no longer enforce over half. Marriage is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments.
That is number seven Neither is abortion
Number six or gun control.
Hmmmm...
Ok , I give you that the ten commandments do not endorse gun control.
-
4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.................
Attempts to encode 4 have largely failed................
You don't hold with a 40 hr work week?
There are a lot of Old Testament precepts that the Unions like better than the Government.
-
So of the Ten Commandments, we no longer enforce over half.
I note that where they are written in scripture , no secular enforcement is suggested.
-
Abortion is not murder. It is not even infanticide.
Adultery is not the same thing as marriage. Adultery is at most a prohibition against married people fooling around. People who have never married are not adulterers. They are fornicators at most. Fornication is unmentioned by the 10 Commandments. Gay sex is a form of fornication as understood in Biblical terms.
The Ten Commandments has nothing at all to say about guns, other than perhaps not to kill people with guns. If a Good Man with a gun kills a Bad Man with a gun, I am afraid that a commandment has been violated, making that Good Man automatically just another Bad Man.
How can you be against George Takei, aka Mr Sulu not being allowed to marry his husband?
Note also that you are permitted to worship minor gods by the Ten Commandments.
Thou shalt not have other gods before me, suggests that (a) you are allowed to have minor gods, and (b) those minor god do, in fact exist. For example, you could say a little prayer to the toaster god so your toast would not get burned. You might utter a small incantation to the God of Socks, so as to prevent holes in your socks. Minor gods were a common occurrence in ancient times. They were called Lares and Penates by the Romans.
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-home.html (http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-home.html)
Worshiping large gold-plated bulls, was however, verboten. Remember what happened to Dathan ([played by Edward G Robinson) in the Cecil B De Mille movie.
-
I note that where they are written in scripture , no secular enforcement is suggested.
-=================================================================
That would be because there was no secular state. The Hebrews had no secular state, the Egyptians had none, either.
The Roman Empire at the time of Jesus was hardly a secular state, as people were expected to donate to the temple of Caesar, who was considered to be a divine being.
I do not think there were any secular states until at least the founding of Switzerland by tyhe union of both Catholic and protests cantons.
China was as secular a state as existed. Ashoka, the Indian emperor that embraced Buddhism after conquering most of India, did not require conversion of Hindus and others to Buddhism, so perhaps that was the first secular state. Perhaps the US was the first government to proclaim itself to be secular.
-
Abortion is not murder. It is not even infanticide.
Well that is just ridiculous.
If you are so free to excuse killing then what indeed is murder?
Nothing can be every sort of killing has someone who benefits enough to refine the definition .
-
I have no objections to Steve or Eve marrying Airedales, but I imagine that ridicule would be the main social constraint against it. I am against people claiming their pets as dependents on their income taxes. Imagine what claiming all the ants in one's ant farm as dependents could do to a Form 1040.
Ridicule or not the doors to such things are opening.
Does the state really have any interest in preventing fathers from being wed to their daughters? sons ?Oedipus could have benefitted so much by being born a few millennia later.
I suppose I could claim a lot of creatures that I am supporting , that is a pretty good suggestion.
-
Executions are not murder, accidental killing is perhaps manslaughter is not murder, the deaths of Trevon Martin and Eric Garner was not only not murder, but not even worthy of a trial. The reason we have the word "abortion" is because it is not the same thing as murder, or even killing.
-
Is your argument here that abortion is equivalent to the manslaughter of Eric Garner?
I disagree , mostly because the death of Mr. Garner did not seem intentional.
If you consider Mr. Garners death to be intended then perhaps it is exactly equivalent.
-
Accepting LittlebabyJeezus is unrelated to Adam marrying Steve.
Accepting Christ is simply being Christian. Being Christian, is a choice, which includes making every effort not to sin. It's a sin, in the eyes of God, for immoral acts, such as adultery or homosexuality. There's no law against either, nor should there be. They simply are put on the same mantle of immoral choices
LOL...I do have to chuckle at the attempt to connect a god given right, in defending ourselves with a firearm in this country, to "turning the other cheek". Quite the deflective stretch, even for you ;D Here's a hint, even if there were firearms in Jesus time, it would have been wholly inappropriate for his anger to manifest itself into such a fit of rage, he would "go postal". That's not what firearms, or even knives are for. They are simply tools, that the person in question uses.....for whatever purpose they've decided to use them for.
-
I do not think that the officer that choked Eric Garnet to death actually gave a damn about whether he killed him or not.
This was not some sort of accident. At the very least, the cop should have been tried for manslaughter.
Garner was not holed up inside the cop's body, which is why it was not comparable to an abortion. A woman has an ABSOLUTE right to determine what she does with her body. Which sirs., do does not even know the woman, does not have, which the government should not have.
-
Which sirs., do does not even know the woman, does not have, which the government should not have.
What the frell?? For someone so enamored with a person's rights, you sure have no problem trying to strip them of their right to free speech and to bear firearms
A person's rights (man or woman) are sacrosanct.....until it impacts the right of another, which in the case of abortion, is an innocent unborn child. Period
-
I have seen far too many times the old crap about how the US has four hundred eighty pounds of laws or something like that, when all the Hebrew children needed was the 10 Commandments. This is the sort of thing that unthinking, stupid people say.
We constantly hear about how the US was founded on the Bible, when only perhaps four of the Ten Commandments are encoded into laws in this country. The American legal system is based on English common law, NOT the Bible.
Turning the other cheek means exactly like that. It does not mean perforating whomsoever confronts you with bullets. Jesus was clearly nonviolent. The NRA is clearly in favor of making violence efficiently, because that is what a firearm does.
There never was any King Oedipus, that story was a myth. By the way, Oedipus, fleeing a prophesy, killed his real father Laius(The King of Thebes) and married his mother Jocasta (The Queen). He was a local hero because he answered the Riddle of the Sphinx, which made the Sphinx stop blocking the road into Thebes, and actually kill herself, which is apparently what Sphinxes do when you answer their riddles correctly. When the truth was revealed that Oedipus had killed his father and married his mother, he gouged out his eyes, and Jocasta killed herself. The moral of the tale is that you cannot run away from a prophesy.
-
As I have said many many times before, I do not advocate the government taking away your sacred firearms. That would cause far to many deaths to even attempt. I simply lament that this was not done previously, before the nutcases took over and cause demented fools to arm themselves against mostly imaginary villains.
I am all for you and that idiot LaPierre ranting and raving their slobbering fury as much as they desire.
Fetuses have no rights. You have to be born before you get rights.
-
Your actions debunk your claim of not wanting to abolish my right to own a firearm. There are already a ton of laws, as it relates to gun ownership. More laws don't make us safer, they merely strip away more law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves using a firearm, since criminals are going to get their guns illegally to begin with.
But I do appreciate how you have no problem stripping rights away from an unborn child. At least you're honest
And stop trying to paintbrush the 10 commandments as supposed "Christian law". They are simply actions to follow. Also, as i said, there's nothing encoded in the 10 commandments. So stop trying to encode something that has no code ::)
-
Turning the other cheek means exactly like that. It does not mean perforating whomsoever confronts you with bullets.
So, in Xo's governed world, turning the other cheek is turning so the criminal thug can shoot in the other. *whew*...so thankful that's not part of this country's governance :o
-
There is NO SUCH THING as an unborn child. That is like pointing to 20,000 empty beer cans, and calling it an "unmanufactured trailer."
Every human being has the right to their own body.
A wart is a living thing. I suppose you would say that Congress has a right to tell you that you have no right to have a wart removed.
======================================================
So, in Xo's governed world, turning the other cheek is turning so the criminal thug can shoot in the other. *whew*...so thankful that's not part of this country's governance :o
No, that is NOT what I am saying. I am reminding you of what Jesus meant when he said "turn the other cheek". That is what would happen if Jesus were running the country according to his teachings. I think that Jesus' teachings were impractical. When you hear that they are going to crucify you, the logical thing to do is not stick around until they come for you, it it to light out for the territories, as Mark Twain would have said.
I make no claim to being a Christian. You do. You are the one that should be turning the other cheek. You should be willing to turn at least ONE for Jeezus. After all, you have a total of four cheeks. My solution has always been to flee bad guys. That has worked very well for me so far.
-
Sorry to throw mud on your rant, but there absolutely is such a thing as an unborn child. So, yes, I agree, every human being born or about to be born, has an absolute right to their own body....period
And I know precisely what Jesus meant when he encouraged us to turn the other cheek. I do it every time I'm having to rebutt some asanine accusation you make. That doesn't equate to standing in front of some thug about to assault/kill you, and you just turn and take it
-
I have this feeling that you are not down with Jesus.
Your Jesus would be packing heat, I bet. If only there were heat in those days for him to pack.
As Messiahs go, the best example of a traditional Old Testament Messiah would be none other than Shimon bar Kochkba. He actually threw the Roman out of Judea. And he had no heat to pack, but he did use weapons.
-
You can "feel" anything you want. Doesn't make it right. And in your case, with your batting average, is pretty much a guarantee that whatever you think "I think", is likely the exact opposite of what I actually would think
-
You fail to understand what "turn the other cheek" means.
Meanwhile, even as I write this, Key West and Miami are working on being a major destination for gay weddings.
-
I know exactly what "turn the other cheek" means, in the context that Christ references it. It means when someone is abusing you, you take it. It wasn't meant to take physical abuse, yet there you are trying to connect that, with defending oneself with a firearm. What's patently apparent is you're the one who has no fricken clue what Christ meant when he said many a thing, including turning the other cheek
-
A cheek is a physical part pf the body.
I suppose that you think Jesus was talking about verbal abuse. That is not what he was talking about. but again, continue to believe all the nonsense you wish.
-
Jesus wasn't being literal, Dr Deflection. Jesus wasn't referring to someone slapping someone else. It's rhetorical....AS IN HE WAS TALKING RHETORICALLY, NOT LITERALLY, and NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT VERBAL ABUSE. One would think a linguistics professor could grasp that point. Apparently not those who teach spanish. Then again, that's one of your go-to tactics, argue a point never made, ::)
-
The context in which Jesus said to turn the other cheek was instructing his disciples on how to conduct themselves.
If slapped on the cheek turning the other, if sued for a cloak give two cloaks , if required to carry a pack for a mile , carry the pack two.
Then he and most of the people he told this directly became martyrs.
Lots of Christians since became martyrs, this is a high standard of service.
Wasn't long after this instruction that he told his disciples to make sure and buy some swords.
Then when he was being arrested one of his guys started to put up a fight, ... but Jesus stopped him , told him to put his sword away and performed a healing on the wound.
I think Jesus was making it clear that he was going willingly into martyrdom , not being surprised and overwhelmed when helpless.
This is a serious subject, is a gun a waste of money , if you havn't the will to defend yourself with it?
Not necessarily, there are indeed circumstances in which having a gun can serve the cause of peace , and times when it does not.
If you have the gun , you have the choice to use it , or not, and you can choose to be injured rather than shoot , if this is what seems right.
But if you havn't prepared , not only with getting the gun, not only with practice and proficiency, but also with serious thought and prayer. Then you are not being a free agent and making choices at all.
Whether you get a gun or don't but especially if you do it is worthy to settle within yourself what the decision is and why sooner than the need. So that when the need is present the decision doesn't take all day, and isn't wrong for you.
-
There is NO SUCH THING as an unborn child. That is like pointing to 20,000 empty beer cans, and calling it an "unmanufactured trailer."
You say this as if there were a clear definition of "Human Being ".
Is there?
It took a long time and a lot of struggle for Colored people to get something like equal standing under the law.
What makes the people that are a day ahead of being born a lower grade of creature than someone a day older?
I have read quotes of Thomas Jefferson in which he rationalizes the status of slaves and Indians on the basis of real and supposed difference, is this the same exercise?
-
There is NO SUCH THING as an unborn child. That is like pointing to 20,000 empty beer cans, and calling it an "unmanufactured trailer."
It took a long time and a lot of struggle for Colored people to get something like equal standing under the law.
What makes the people that are a day ahead of being born a lower grade of creature than someone a day older?
I have read quotes of Thomas Jefferson in which he rationalizes the status of slaves and Indians on the basis of real and supposed difference, is this the same exercise?
BINGO
-
You have to be born to be a human being.
An egg is not a chicken, a maggot is not a fly. There is a far greater difference here than skin color.
The usual distinction was that a human is different from a clam, a chicken or even a dog because a human has a soul, and animals and vegetables do not. Perhaps God needs to let us know when he installs souls. Is at the moment of conception, the time of bih, somewhere in between, or perhaps at some later date after birth.
-
You have to be born to be a human being.
Let the rationalizations continue. I bet Hitler was at one time rationalzing something similar (not identical professor literal, but similar), in justifying the need to murder millions. The jews just weren't "human being enough"
A growing child, being carried by a mother, is just as much a human as you or I...period
-
Only in your mind.
-
Keep up those rationalization efforts
-
Damn right!
-
You have to be born to be a human being.
An egg is not a chicken, a maggot is not a fly. There is a far greater difference here than skin color.
The usual distinction was that a human is different from a clam, a chicken or even a dog because a human has a soul, and animals and vegetables do not. Perhaps God needs to let us know when he installs souls. Is at the moment of conception, the time of bih, somewhere in between, or perhaps at some later date after birth.
I am surprised that your definition of a human being requires an act of God, Perhaps I do not understand your agnosticism very well.
I hereby assert that the definition of Human Being requires many things , including a full head of hair.
I am therefore still human , but not as much as I once was.
An egg is not a chicken, a maggot is not a fly.
An old man is not a child, so which is a human being? There is a great difference between an octogenarian man and a young girl , therefore it is certain that they cannot both be Human Beings?
-
Keep up those rationalization efforts
Damn right!
lol....priceless
-
The woman's right to decide trumps sirs opinions, it is as simple as that.
-
Check that out....Plane (and Cu4) have nearly an identical "opinions" o this issue, and yet there's xo again, trying to use me as his go to crutch of indefensibility. Priceless
A living, growing, human child isn't an opinion. It's a biological fact. Your hang-up is geography
-
The states that are refusing to recognize the marriage of gays married in other states are the ones with the geographical problems. And of course, the IRS, that still does not recognize a d=same sex mate as a dependent.
-
No, the location of the child is your geographical problem. One is resting underneath the mother's skin, the other is located on the outside. Both of whom are biological human beings
-
Abortion, gun "rights", undeserving Black people, all this stuff is simply a smokescreen the distract the feebler minds of this country away from the really important facts that (1) an increasingly decreasing percentage of the population is controlling a constantly larger percentage of the resources and wealth of this country, that (2) they do not care about the pollution and the results of pollution that they are causing and that (3) the current system is completely unsustainable.
The big issues are ignored entirely and petty issues are stressed because that is what helps the few as we hurtle near and near to the precipice.
-
Couldn't get to be more of a smoke screen with that multiple deflection effort. You forgot Global Warming. "Undeserving black people"?? Where do you get such hyperbolic dren?? :o
And let's remind the viewers that this apparent disparity between 'the rich" and "the poor", have jumped exponentially under this Democratic controlled WH, and Dems that ran everything the 1st 2 years under Obama, passing pretty much anything they wanted, then obstructed any attempt to reform what they had just pulled over the country, when the GOP took control of the House...., where the rich get richer, with the help of tax payer supplied bailouts (take it away Solyndra), while at the same time more of our citizens are put onto food stamps, than any other time. Brilliant policy
What's unarguably unsustainable is our economic debt, and policies of enabling an ever worsening cultural & economic situation
-
Many, if not most, of those those unwed mothers you keep dumping on are surely Black. And Global climate change is one of several aspects of the environment that are being degraded. Really, the impoverishment of the middle class and the unsustainability of the current system is far, far more important than abortions, guns and gays. And I am sure that we wonlt hear much about it from whatever toady the GOP decides to run for president.
-
Many, if not most, of those those unwed mothers you keep dumping on are surely Black.
Well, shame on you for saying this.
Unless it is true, if it is , whose racism made it true?
-
The states that are refusing to recognize the marriage of gays married in other states are the ones with the geographical problems. And of course, the IRS, that still does not recognize a d=same sex mate as a dependent.
Do you mean to say that the big looser in the final deal is the IRS?
The IRS is going to loose even bigger when Polyandry wins .
-
Many, if not most, of those those unwed mothers you keep dumping on are surely Black. And Global climate change is one of several aspects of the environment that are being degraded. Really, the impoverishment of the middle class and the unsustainability of the current system is far, far more important than abortions, guns and gays. And I am sure that we wonlt hear much about it from whatever toady the GOP decides to run for president.
Color is irrelvent. Their choices are
And love all the current Global "warming" going on. North Dakota was....what was it.... -7 degrees last week?
The Middle class is being destroyed.....by current policies being pushed by lunatic liberal Democrats, with an apparent goal of where we have some uber rich, who dictate how everything and everyone is to function.....for our own good of course, and an ever growing class of poverty riddled beholden to Government poor class
That's what's going to take front and center come 2016. So don't worry, we're going to hear a plethora of issues as to what's degrading and impoverishing the middle class. Top of that list being Obamination Care. Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Global warming is what the left tries to do to distract from what hits the rest of us, the hardest, and consistently ranks at the top of polling, as to what peope are most concerned about...that being the economy, jobs, national security, and thanks now to Obama's imperialistic power push, immigration is becoming a more important item. Not specifically immigration, but the issue of abuse of power by the Government
-
Abortion, gun "rights", undeserving Black people, all this stuff is simply a smokescreen the distract the feebler minds of this country away from the really important facts that (1) an increasingly decreasing percentage of the population is controlling a constantly larger percentage of the resources and wealth of this country, that (2) they do not care about the pollution and the results of pollution that they are causing and that (3) the current system is completely unsustainable.
The big issues are ignored entirely and petty issues are stressed because that is what helps the few as we hurtle near and near to the precipice.
Not so , when incomes were more flat and there were fewer rich an hundred years ago, there were many more children starving than now.
Or so I have heard.
Unequal distribution of wealth is not a real issue.
-
You have to be born to be a human being.
So if the baby is inside the Mother at 8PM it has no rights.
But if the baby is delivered via C-section at 8:05PM it has full rights?
Killable at 8:00 PM
Not Killable at 8:05 PM
Yeah sure Boss!
-
Yeah, that is the way it should be.
I am not for or against abortions, I just think that a women has a greater right than some schmuck like you acting through the government to do what she deems in her best interest.
It is pretty damn simple, really. Why do you think you have a right to tell anyone anything what they can do with their own life?
-
You have to be born to be a human being.
So if the baby is inside the Mother at 8PM it has no rights.
But if the baby is delivered via C-section at 8:05PM it has full rights?
Killable at 8:00 PM
Not Killable at 8:05 PM
Yeah, that is the way it should be.
Wow......just wanted everyone to see that revelation
-
It would be great some divine force impregnated you and CU4. Really.
-
Then we'd be a woman. And as a woman, I'd be responsible enough to not get pregnant, until I could financially support myself and my child
-
Wow......just wanted everyone to see that revelation
Ya see SIRS that's whats great about these message boards
you can follow up and follow up
until the utter ridiculous of the Leftist position finally emerges
this time the position is abortion is ok 5 minutes before birth!
Ha Ha Ha....now SIRS that is a BINGO!
-
This is not about WHEN an abortion should or should not take place.
It is about who decides. Are you so damn stupid you cannot understand this?
The decision is not up to the government or you or me.
-
Wow......just wanted everyone to see that revelation
Ya see SIRS that's whats great about these message boards
you can follow up and follow up
until the utter ridiculous of the Leftist position finally emerges
this time the position is abortion is ok 5 minutes before birth!
Ha Ha Ha....now SIRS that is a BINGO!
Indeed.......we can refer to this as the Gruber Phenomenon or Event.....where the position of the hard core left, actually comes to its realistic public fruition, despite the layers upon layers of obfuscation and deflection, that proceeded the event 8)
-
This is not about WHEN an abortion should or should not take place.
It absolutely IS. One more time, this has bever been about some damn pro-choice / anti-choice issue. A woman can choose ANY DAMN THING SHE WANTS........OUTSIDE OF TAKING THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT UNBORN CHILD WHO HAS NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER.
So yes, its all about abortion, and when it takes place. Thank you again for your Gruber-like revelation for highlighting what it truly boils down to
-
And one more time, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT UNBORN CHILD.
Any wealthy woman who wants an abortion can get one, if not in the US, somewhere. Al;l you want to do is to prevent poor women from doing what any rich woman can do.
And again. there is no reason why any government needs to ban anything. It is not the government's decision. Nowhere in the Constitution is this mentioned.,
-
Your rationalizations aside, there absolutely is such a thing as an unborn child. Besides the biological fact of he or she's presence, ask any mother, who's 8 months pregnant. Let me know if they respond..."ahh, yes, I have a wonderful little female fetus" ::)
-
And one more time, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT UNBORN CHILD.
This is kind of a weird thing to say.
-
According to Christian doctrine, we are all born in original sin, so forget the innocent part.
Any fool can tell a child from a fetus. You cannot see a fetus without an x ray or some other device.
A fetus is a potential child, just as an egg might be a potential chicken.
It is none of anyone's beeswax what a woman wants to do with her own body.
-
Innocent in the context its being used, is't about sin......its about not having committed any acts. Then again, you knew that, simply was a deflection effort on your part. And a fetus is merely a medical term....FOR AN UNBORN CHILD.
It's none of anyone's beeswax to harm an unborn child's own body
-
I am afraid that this is a common American attitude , a killing that you don't have to look at is not seriously a killing.
Killing a baby the day before it is born is killing a baby and killing an enemy with a remote control device is an act of war. But if it is done out of sight , we need not take it seriously.
A human being alive is the primary thing that law should be protecting, but it isn't particularly good at it.
As far as I know there isn't much of a definition of "person" or "human being " for the law to use.
According to Christian doctrine, we are all born in original sin, so forget the innocent part.
Any fool can tell a child from a fetus. You cannot see a fetus without an x ray or some other device ....
So the difference in abortion and infanticide is seeing .
A human being you can't see is not a human being.
I don't agree and I think some of the people who are playing catch to our hellfire missiles don't agree.
We may have to do something , but we should take it seriously, it isn't less than an act of war to kill from a distance and it isn't less than killing to kill in the dark.
-
According to Christian doctrine, we are all born in original sin, so forget the innocent part.
By the way, unless you are professing Christianity as the truth, it seems incongruous for you to refer to it as a generator of law.
-
Touche' 8)
-
I mentioned this because you claim to be a Christian, not because I believe it.
I recognize that children are innocent with no difficulty: you, supposedly do not, and yet you refer to these children as "innocent" The hypocrisy is yours, not mine.
I am neither for nor against abortion. OI continue to state the belief that a woman has an absolute right over her own body. Ypiu are the one that wants "jack booted government thugs" to punish her and her doctor should she have an abortion that you do not approve of.
With regard to abortion, I agree with Libertarians. A woman choosing an abortion does me no harm.
-
I recognize that children are innocent with no difficulty: you, supposedly do not, and...
...and you keep ignoring the context by which the term innocent is being used. Here's a hint, it has nothing to do with Christian theology.....or any religion for that matter. I wonder why is that. When in fact, we all know why you pull that prank....Xo tactic 102; argue against a point, no one has made.
And of course you're for abortion.....its "only a fetus" right? I tell you what, when I get to work, I'll ask one of our few preganant nurses if she's carrying a fetus or an unborn child. These would be medical progessionals, with all forms of medical degrees, who know precisely what a fetus is. Want to take bets on what their answers are going to be?
And the "harm" has nothing to do with you, or even the mother. It's the harm to the unborn child, that's at the heart of this matter
-
With regard to abortion, I agree with Libertarians. A woman choosing an abortion does me no harm.
So , Libertarians would have been strongly against the 1860 Republican platform?
Man , times like this I really miss UP.
-
Ditto on missing the Prince......and Pooch :-\
-
Slavery was obviously harmful to the slaves, who were human beings.
A woman deciding to have an abortion or not does not harm a single citizen. Fetuses are not citizens. They are potential babies.
this is a silly question. There were no Libertarians then. You might as well ask about Charlemagne's opinion of Net Neutrality.
I have never agreed to abide by sirs weird rules of debate.
-
Welp...1st Pregnant nurse response is back. An apparent yet-to-be born bouncing girl. Apparently not a fetus, not a mass of cells, not a "potential" human, but an unborn baby girl. There's about 3 other Nurses I need to inquire to
A Woman deciding to have an abortion absoutely harms the unborn child....kills him or her...literally
---------------------------------------------------
Xo tactic 102, arguing a point never made. FYI, I have no rules of debate to follow, so there's no need to abide by something, that doesn't exist. The only rule I have....for me personally, is just a quid-pro-quo of responding. Respect in posting, respect in responding. If I get disrespected in a post, I have no obligation to be respectful in responding. My rule only, that you're not obligated to abide by
-
---------------------------------------------------
Xo tactic 102, arguing a point never made. FYI, I have no rules of debate to follow, so there's no need to abide by something, that doesn't exist. The only rule I have....for me personally, is just a quid-pro-quo of responding. Respect in posting, respect in responding. If I get disrespected in a post, I have no obligation to be respectful in responding. My rule only, that you're not obligated to abide by
Yes , this is the real world of debate, the kind that politics has been fond of since Socrates was in short pants.
I might like a debate with more orderly rules of order , but I would not quit this one for it.
Take note that the presidential debaters are prone to straw man arguments, distraction, non sequiter etc etc....
Don't get frustrated , whetstones are supposed to be rough.
-
I mentioned this because you claim to be a Christian, not because I believe it.
I recognize that children are innocent with no difficulty: you, supposedly do not, and yet you refer to these children as "innocent" The hypocrisy is yours, not mine.
Then lets talk about the children that are innocent in your terms, does the law have an interest in preventing the murder of innocent children?
As Benjamin Franklin noted a newborn baby is pretty useless.
-
---------------------------------------------------
Xo tactic 102, arguing a point never made. FYI, I have no rules of debate to follow, so there's no need to abide by something, that doesn't exist. The only rule I have....for me personally, is just a quid-pro-quo of responding. Respect in posting, respect in responding. If I get disrespected in a post, I have no obligation to be respectful in responding. My rule only, that you're not obligated to abide by
Take note that the presidential debaters are prone to straw man arguments, distraction, non sequiter etc etc....
Don't get frustrated , whetstones are supposed to be rough.
My patience does wear thin from time to time, but there's Plane to demonstrate and exmplify what true patience really is :) You are an excellent Jedi Master, and I a mere Padawan in your presence
-
---------------------------------------------------
Xo tactic 102, arguing a point never made. FYI, I have no rules of debate to follow, so there's no need to abide by something, that doesn't exist. The only rule I have....for me personally, is just a quid-pro-quo of responding. Respect in posting, respect in responding. If I get disrespected in a post, I have no obligation to be respectful in responding. My rule only, that you're not obligated to abide by
Take note that the presidential debaters are prone to straw man arguments, distraction, non sequiter etc etc....
Don't get frustrated , whetstones are supposed to be rough.
My patience does wear thin from time to time, but there's Plane to demonstrate and exmplify what true patience really is :) You are an excellent Jedi Master, and I a mere Padawan in your presence
Sometimes I like the way you talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjfd4hnE-PI
-
Fetuses are not citizens. .....
And why not?
This is the central point, you may point out that a boy is not a man and a man is not a woman and a woman is not a girl, but in spite of these very evident differences they are all eligible as citizens .
It is certainly not enough to point out that a fetus is different, there has to be a difference that matters .
-
The difference that matters is obvious to all.
And it looks like the Supreme Court will finally take up the entire gay marriage issue.
The idea that states can have different laws about gay marriage and that every state can respect every other states contradictory laws is pretty absurd.
Personally, this issue does not matter to me one way or another, I am not gay, nor is anyone I know affected, nor do I think marriage is all that great an idea.
It is essentially being used as a smokescreen to prevent people from doing anything about the major issues: Warr and Peace, Rich and Poor, Black, White and Brown, and actual functioning Democracy.
-
The difference that matters is obvious to all.
Oh? How is it very obvious and also impossible to elucidate?
And it looks like the Supreme Court will finally take up the entire gay marriage issue.
The idea that states can have different laws about gay marriage and that every state can respect every other states contradictory laws is pretty absurd.
Personally, this issue does not matter to me one way or another, I am not gay, nor is anyone I know affected, nor do I think marriage is all that great an idea.
It is essentially being used as a smokescreen to prevent people from doing anything about the major issues: Warr and Peace, Rich and Poor, Black, White and Brown, and actual functioning Democracy.
I think the difference is that some of us think of democracy as a long term project , multigenerational , but a failure if individual rights in the present are not as respected as the future.
Abortion is a failure of individual rights .
Gay marrage is a failure of long term sustainability.
-
The US can easily deal with gays, as we do not have any problem reproducing ourselves. If the entire nation were gay, we could easily maintain the birthrate through artificial insemination. Gays are not against having children, they simply do not prefer heterosexual sex as a form of recreation. Modern technology could easily permit an entirely gay culture to sustain itself. Of course, this is a moot point, since no such culture is going to exist. Perhaps a totally gay planet culture might make an interesting Star Trek The Newest Generation episode. Any society that includes both men and women of childbearing age can reproduce itself with or without actual heterosexual relations.
Permitting women to decide the fate of their pregnancy is entirely unrelated to Democracy. Perhaps fewer unwanted births would affect income disparity and the crime rate. Unwanted children are more likely to be unproductive and criminal individuals. When BC pills were introduced, there was a seriousl drop in the crime rate two decades later.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forever_War
That actually does make a very good story, I read it years ago , recommend it for a rainy day.
Reproduction is more than procreation, we could be raising clones in barracks if we didn't care that they would all turn out to be agnostic Democrats.
Reproduction should include a reasonable indoctrination to faith and reason that can result in an orderly society without need of tyranny.
Do we really know what we risk by smashing our family structure?
-
I seriously question that having gay parents smashes "family structure" . Two parents of any sexual orientation is almost certainly better than one or none.
Children with two gay parents are almost certainly going to be more tolerant of homosexuality. Other than that, they are like children of any other types of parent.
-
As far as we know,I guess, lets experiment , lets experiment totally, what is there to loose?
-
I see nothing wrong with allowing any American to marry anyone he or she wishes. I don't see this as an experiment.
I don't think that any sane Supreme Court judge would rule to make all the gays who have already married in 36 states to be unmarried. I don't see how any state can refuse to recognize people married in a different state, either.
The main problems children have when growing up stem from poverty, a lack of educated parents, and being unwanted.
Two gay parents are more likely to be able to support a child than one, as two people are likely to earn more.
Typically, gays and Lesbians marry and adopt at a later date than hetero couples. They are far more likely to have children because they actually want to have them.
The child of gay /Lesbian parents is statistically likely to be more wanted, have a better attitude to education, and to not be poor than the child of a teen mother.
-
I think the difference is that some of us think of democracy as a long term project , multigenerational , but a failure if individual rights in the present are not as respected as the future.
Abortion is a failure of individual rights .
Gay marrage is a failure of long term sustainability.
BINGO!!
-
Welp...1st Pregnant nurse response is back. An apparent yet-to-be born bouncing girl. Apparently not a fetus, not a mass of cells, not a "potential" human, but an unborn baby girl. There's about 3 other Nurses I need to inquire to
A Woman deciding to have an abortion absolutely harms the unborn child....kills him or her...literally
---------------------------------------------------
Xo tactic 102, arguing a point never made. FYI, I have no rules of debate to follow, so there's no need to abide by something, that doesn't exist. The only rule I have....for me personally, is just a quid-pro-quo of responding. Respect in posting, respect in responding. If I get disrespected in a post, I have no obligation to be respectful in responding. My rule only, that you're not obligated to abide by
2nd & 3rd reports back from the hospital. Both staff, 1 a nurse, and 1 a nurses aide, both carrying ....... wait for it.......1 an unborn baby girl, the other an unborn baby boy. Apparently not a potential boy or girl, not a fetus, but an unborn child, as in human. There's still 1 more Nurse I need to speak with, but I won't be back to work now until Tues. I have a feeling though, I know what her answer's going to be. Stay tuned
-
I reject your Bingo as stupid and idiotic, sirs.
-
The main problems children have when growing up stem from poverty, a lack of educated parents, and being unwanted.
The main reason children grow up in poverty, is women who continue to have them out of wedlock, without being fully educated, and without a father figure in the home
-
I reject your Bingo as stupid and idiotic, sirs.
And once again, its not my bingo. It's acknowledging the point that PLANE MADE. Your apparent beef is with him ::)
-
Note that the topic here is NOT abortions.
-
That hasn't stopped you from injecting it, in this thread. Nor have you referenced how "stupid" Plane's point was. Or are we to abide by your rules to debate, where you get to decide when tangents are allowed to be debated? :o
-
I think just saying that an idea is stupid is adequate. And I did not inject the topic of abortion, you did.
-
You REALLY need to pay attention to what you post. In particular post #12, to see who "injected abortion" into this thread.
So, no, not only are you aiming incorrectly with the stupid idea, since you applied it specifically to me, when I was simply acknowledging someone else's idea, demonstrating your ingrown effort to try and use me in your ineffectual attempt to discredit a point someone else made, you can't even recall that YOU injected a tangent, that you're now trying to wiggle away from.
Your rules for debate are quite screwy
-
Oh who cares?
Your foolish opinions on gay marriage are being washed away.
Of course, the issues that you think are so tremendously crucial (abortion, gay marriage, guns, the use of rhetorical statements) are really minor matters in the progress of this country, mere distractions to the fact that a very teensy percentage of individuals are gaining more and more of the wealth of this country, and that the current capitalist system is unsustainable.
-
Oh who cares?
............are really minor matters in the progress of this country, mere distractions to the fact that a very teensy percentage of individuals are gaining more and more of the wealth of this country, and that the current capitalist system is unsustainable.
If that is more important , who thinks so?
Why is much being done about other things and nothing done about the sustainability of the capitalist system?
Seems like the least of our worries is that the USA will not tax someone {anyone} quite enough.
-
So true....and notice how quickly the left tries to change the subject from those issues that are ranking highest in polling, such as debt, economy, unemployment, out-of-control centralized government, and national security, to ..... abortion, gay marriage, & income inequality :o
-
Income inequality and a sustainable future both with regard to the economy and the environment are important to each and every American.The other issues are sideshows to woo the slower thinkers, who prefer to fear Blacks. play with firearms and hate gays.
-
Income inequality doesn't even rank in the top 10 of nearly every poll. Yet, there's the left pulling out that sideshow, just the same as you claim the right does with gay marriage and abortion...all in an effort to deflect from the REAL issues that most Americans are concerned about,..... economy, unemployement, out of control Government, and of course, HEALTHCARE. Can't be talking about those now, can we....need to fool those stupid Americans, to believe that income inequality and "free" (as in more taxes) Jr College, is supposedly the bees-knees of issues
-
Polls are not what make issues important. Reality does that.
The reality is that the current system is both financially and ecologically unsustainable, regardless of polls.
-
Income inequality is not a real issue.
Income equality is an evil notion, a fantasy that has no benefit to offer but has killed millions for the sake of its will of the wisp appeal.
Think about income equality from the point of view of the time when it is accomplished , above the mountain of skulls that it took to accomplish it and the famine that it maintains.
Look at the facts that we know , income was never so equalized as the early 60s in China , when the greatest famine of human history just happened to occur, what about income equality would ever prevent famine?
I think about an hundred years ago right here in the south pellagra and yellow fever dogged the poor who had bad diets and difficulty escaping filth, but they were blessed with far fewer millionaires per capata than now. Go ahead and correct for inflation I DD dare you .
More wealthy per capata is a noble goal , it comes with good service to the population, which is the fount of that wealth.
Income redistribution , without regards' to earning, is worse than unfair, it is pernicious and deadly.
The illusion of fairness that equal distribution of wealth carries has at times been so strong , that leaders and populations have allowed or engendered famines to promote income equality.
-
That is 100% certifiable BULLSHIT. When any society reaches a point in which the few have most of everything, what always happens is some d=sort of violent bloody revolution. It is better for the fatcats to learn how to share what they do not need (Rupert Murdock's five billionth dollar, Romneys second house with an elevator for his cars) than to wait until it simply explodes.
And in addition, the economic and ecological system is entirely non sustainable.
-
That is 100% certifiable BULLSHIT. When any society reaches a point in which the few have most of everything, what always happens is some d=sort of violent bloody revolution. It is better for the fatcats to learn how to share what they do not need (Rupert Murdock's five billionth dollar, Romneys second house with an elevator for his cars) than to wait until it simply explodes.
And in addition, the economic and ecological system is entirely non sustainable.
You just have the cycle backwards.
It is a long struggle to produce a widespread high standard of living, this is never the result of a revolution.
-
Polls are not what make issues important. Reality does that.
No, the ability to rationalize does that. You claim how abortion and gay marriage are "not important issues"....based on what....YOUR perception of what's important??
There is no right to equal outcomes The reality is that income inequality is only important to the hard core left....as it feeds their class warfare rhetoric, and allows opportunities to try and distract those stupid Americans from the REALITY of the issues they believe are most important
And what makes our economic system so dysfunctionally unsustainable, is NOT income inequality, but DEBT & DEFICIT SPENDING.
-
This is a very, very rich country where many people still have difficulty feeding themselves. I say everyone has a right to enough to eat and a decent place to live. I do not actually give a shit what an asshole like sirs believes.
-
Sorry, there is no such "right", anywhere in the Constitution. Nor is there any right to some perceived equal outcomes". The only right is that you have is in the opportunity to obtain as much of an income as you want. Some folks are indeed luckier than others. Some folks make bad decisions. NEITHER folk should be supplimented for their bad decisions, whether its bailing out a company, or providing abortion services.
If you wish to donate large sums of money to help whoever you want to help, by all means. Your money, is your money. But if you're going to keep pushing some perceived mandate that we as a country, must provide, based on your leftist sense of morals, then by all means, I can push the same moral mandate that we as a country, need to provide aide to our military allies, especially Israel
Not to mention, none of this has anything to do with you having to believe what sirs believes.....Dr. Deflection
-
Ohh......last Nurse has responded....a bundle of an unborn baby girl. Apparently not a fetus....not a potential girl....not a mass of cells.....but an actual unborn baby human, gender girl
-
This is a very, very rich country where many people still have difficulty feeding themselves. I say everyone has a right to enough to eat and a decent place to live.
No, this is a disaster .
The number of people doing a lot less than their fair share of the needed work is already pretty high, at some point it can't be sustained.
-
How much work do you reckon Rupert Murdock does in a day?
There are hundreds of trust fund clowns here in Miami, driving up and down I-95 in their 9-11's, Ferraris and Lamborginis that have never done a lick of work in their entire lives.
The amount of work done is rarely related to the salary received or the usefulness of the work done.
-
Your opinion and jealousy are both duly noted
-
I am not jealous of Rupert Murdock. I am retired and have everything I need.
And this "duly noted" crap is getting old. You sound just like the Commissar that says the same crap to Yuro Zhivago when he mentions that an old woman in his house has died of cholera.
No one in his right mind would ever appoint a feeble thinker like you to the post of Commissar.
-
Naaaa, the way you talk about all the great cars and stuff they have, demonstrates an apparent level of jealously. And I have no desire for any official position. I'm just fine highlighting every which way your accusations are wrong, and when they're supported by nothing more than ..... your duly noted hard core leftiest opinion
-
How much work do you reckon Rupert Murdock does in a day?
There are hundreds of trust fund clowns here in Miami, driving up and down I-95 in their 9-11's, Ferraris and Lamborginis that have never done a lick of work in their entire lives.
The amount of work done is rarely related to the salary received or the usefulness of the work done.
You are highly mixing the apples with the oranges there.
Or perhaps it is just your POV about fairness?
Do you think it so unfair that some people work harder for a dollar than others do?
So bad that you would welcome a situation in which no one needed to work hard at all to get dollars?
-
The difficulty with which people work is almost completely unrelated to the amount they get paid to do so.
Again, this is a very, very wealthy country. There is no reason why everyone should not have the education they need to reach their maximum potential, or have a decent place to live and enough food to eat.
Instead. we piss away vast fortunes on unwanted aircraft carrriers, unspeakably expensive aircraft that no one needs, and war after war after war.
And all the increase in productivity we have had in the last ten years went to the top 1%, which none of you Republicans will ever join.
-
The difficulty with which people work is almost completely unrelated to the amount they get paid to do so.
Again, this is a very, very wealthy country. There is no reason why everyone should not have the education they need to reach their maximum potential, or have a decent place to live and enough food to eat.
Instead. we piss away vast fortunes on unwanted aircraft carrriers, unspeakably expensive aircraft that no one needs, and war after war after war.
And all the increase in productivity we have had in the last ten years went to the top 1%, which none of you Republicans will ever join.
If you reverse each of these points I would be a bit more in agreement.
Republicans and non-republicans , there ater a lot of Americans that don't want to get ahead by robbing the rich.
The difficulty of a job is one of several factors that determines how much it is worth, if difficulty was the sole determinant no one would make much more than waitresses.
Investment and education and preparation are the reason that Plumbers make more than Carpet layers and doctors(MD) make more than Secretary's.
A Merchant decides what his own pay should be, Warren Buffet has done almost nothing all his life but buy and sell and advise on buying and selling.
Champion athletes make much or little depending mostly on the size of the fan base. If you can throw a strike twenty times in a row you are worth a lot because there are a lot of fans of baseball, or less if the strikes are in a bowling alley, not because the skill is less, but because the contributors are fewer.
Worst of all , is the civil servant whose pay depends literally on acts of congress and the pleasure of the president. I have had one raise in the last six years , and it wasn't a big one.
Should the government be deciding what people should be making and keeping?
My personal experience doesn't lead me to recommend it.
-
The government of this country could end poverty in this country in a span of ten years.
-
Should the government be deciding what people should be making and keeping?
My personal experience doesn't lead me to recommend it.
Wiser words have never been spoken 8)
-
The government of this country could end poverty in this country in a span of ten years.
I wish you would expand on this .
To me it sounds as if you are promoting perpetual motion or that entropy could be repealed by an act of law.
Poverty is a relative condition, there is no possibility of its being eliminated.
Today in America , a poor man might own a car and a few TVs and live in a house , and have fat children.
He is poor because he is being compared with his contemporaries, if he were compared with his ancestors he would not seem quite as poor.
By the way , I look forward to having Homeless people again soon after we elect a Republican. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House , the problems of the homeless disappear entirely.
-
By the way , I look forward to having Homeless people again soon after we elect a Republican. Whenever a Democrat is in the White House , the problems of the homeless disappear entirely.
LOL....boy ain't that the truth. What do you think...a month? Maybe 3?
Don't forget "Big Oil", as in if the gas prices are low, then obviously it's "Big oil" helping out the Republican President. And of it goes up, then it's obviously the President helping out his buddies in "Big oil"
And don't even get me started on the unemployment #'s. Remember under Bush, and the unemployment #'s was around 4%? The big criticism then was the apparent lack of quality of the employment. Too many fry cooks at McD's, or something like that. Now we have the greatest amount of people, EVER, that have completely dropped out of the job market. But don't worry, we'll start hearing that number repeated adnauseum, once a GOP President resumes the office of the President
-
We won't be electing any more Republican't presidents for a long time.
Jebbie? The Mittster? Huckadoodle? Santorum? O, Please.
-
We won't be electing any more Republican't presidents for a long time.
Jebbie? The Mittster? Huckadoodle? Santorum? O, Please.
Vs Hillary? the mother of lies?
Yes any of them.
If you ever catch Hillary telling the truth , mark it on the calendar.
-
Oh, I think Obama may beat out Hillary, on that one
-
Hillary mentions that after they left the WH, she FELT poor. She did not say she actually experienced poverty. She and Bill did not leave DC carrying bindles or evemn on the Greyhound. It's like Nixon telling of how he was so poor that his car was an Olds with over 100,000 miles on it. How Hillary felt in 2001 has zilch to do with her ability to govern this country. This is just typical Limbaugh crapola.
-
No, she didn't convey a "feeling"...she declared they were broke
-
Do you really think that Hillary Clinton can rise to the standard of Richard Nixon?
Especially in the honesty department , this seems like a stretch.
-
In your mind, probably not.
-
Is there an objective measure for lies told?
What would a good metric be?
Lets have Nixon as a baseline .
Has Hillary told fewer? More?
Could she be some multiple ?
Perhaps some particular multiple of lies could be named for Hillary.
Say an hundred Nixons to a Hillary?
-
I fail to see any point to this.
The most honest president in my lifetime, perhaps ever, was Jimmy Carter. So is there is a standard for truthfulness, he would be the one.
Nixon was different that every other president we have ever had, because he hated, loathed, despised the American people. He hated most foreigners as well.
Only Dick Cheney was more reprehensible.
-
Jimmy Carter ran against a progressive Democrat and an integrationist Republican and won the governorship of Georgia , by feigning racism and segregationism.
The Republican was who my Father voted for he didn't really agree with segregation .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Callaway
-
I do not think that absolute honesty is possible or even desirable in politics.
The American people hate any sort of complexity and do not like to think. They particularly hate it when someone makes them think.
They hate the IRS because they hate math, they hate foreigners because they talk funny and eat funny food.
Reality, however is mostly complex, and the world is 93% composed of foreigners.
-
Who the hell is "they"? ???
-
There are better reasons to hate the IRS than math.
1) they are empowered to take your money , or lock you up long term.
2)they can declare you guilty of owing money, then it is your job to prove your innocence.
3)they are wasteful, inaccurate, corrupt
4)they have political involvement
These four problems and many others would be solved by abolishing the IRS(one of the least likely things congress is ever to do, the IRS empowers congress a lot ).
-
And when used, directly or indirectly via party affiliation, to target opposing organizations, they cease being a federal agency, and simply an arm of an oppressive government body
-
And you want them to tell people when that must reproduce.
-
You're going to have to provide a quote, in context, since I've never claimed the IRS, or any arm of the Government should tell anyone they must reproduce. Man or woman. Good luck finding that
-
If a woman is pregnant and you seek to deny her the choice to have an abortion, you are forcing her to reproduce.
You are denying her the right to choose to not reproduce.
-
If a woman is pregnant and.....
...and stop. That's where your rationalizations start down the irrational path. If a woman is pregnant, its NO LONGER ABOUT THE WOMAN...ITS NOW ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILD. If a woman is so irresponsible, to bring a life into the world, when she didn't want to, you don't punish the innocent unborn child who has no say in the matter.
So, no, this is not about sirs, or anyone else for that matter, proclaiming women must reproduce. Good gravy, what a pathetic irrational leap of illogic. What "I seek" has nothing to do with her, but the life she now carries. And neither is this about "choice" since she can choose any damn thing she wants......EXCEPT to kill the child. That includes the choice not to become pregnant in the 1st place