Powell endorses Obama
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You are my hero....
He would be. He's a liar. You're a liar. It's a perfect match made in hell.
Ilíon wrote:
It's a perfect match made in hell.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you don't believe a word you say, that you're just trolling. No-one is this stupid.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
So ( and I realise I am again asking you to think and discuss here, so feel free to call me dishonest and be done with it ), if a 9 year old girl is repeatedly raped by her step father and becomes pregnant, you'd say that she should be denied an abortion ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
You have no issue with stopping all the people who just want abortions because they had unprotected sex, and don't want to pay the piper? I mean, I know a lot of people who have had abortions. But no one I know got raped and had an abortion, let alone any 9 year olds. So if I say "OK, any raped 9 year olds can get an abortion, either with parental consent, or a court order", you'll say "ok, nobody who is doing it as an excuse to have unprotected sex can keep doing it", right? Count the 9 year olds it happens to, and get back to me. Last time I looked, it was not a million raped 9 year olds a year. Let alone pregnant ones. I'll protect the 9 years olds who got pregnant from rape, if you will protect the babys of people who are lazy and unwilling to curb their hormones. Or should the law allow me shoot anyone I want, because there is some minor chance that one of the people I see might attack me, or some 9 year old I know. So I should not have my right to kill people curtailed, based on the privacy of my own thought and fears.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is?
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby.
Well, sure. So, are you suggesting that the one that is already capable of reason and emotion, be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ? Should she not have any choice here ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception.
*grin* well, I am certain it doesn't occur at birth, however, there's no way that there's a human there at conception, in any form that makes sense. And, if we want to argue for the soul, surely if there's a soul in that tiny group of dividing cells, it would not go to hell for having been aborted ? I am not sure I'd want to nominate when life starts, but I am certain that, for example, taking a medication that causes a miscarriage during the first weeks after conception, is not murder. Beyond that, I don't like it, I am against it as a form of birth control, I think to say the mother has rights and the child has none, is insane. However, on the other hand, I can see places where it's not as black and white as we'd perhaps like it to be.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Give it up Christian, you'll get nowhere but stressed. What bugs me is not that people are pro- or anti-abortion, but that the fanatical anti-abortionists believe that their personal opinion outweighs that of the mother.
-
Ilíon wrote:
It's a perfect match made in hell.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you don't believe a word you say, that you're just trolling. No-one is this stupid.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that you don't believe a word you say, that you're just trolling.
I've thought that for sometime. Once upon a time he may have been posting on the ugliness he believed in, but now, he is so frustrated and angry by the rejection of his petty racism and small-minded hatreds here that his only goal is to disrupt the forum. It's a pity Stan doesn't see this.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is?
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby.
Well, sure. So, are you suggesting that the one that is already capable of reason and emotion, be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ? Should she not have any choice here ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception.
*grin* well, I am certain it doesn't occur at birth, however, there's no way that there's a human there at conception, in any form that makes sense. And, if we want to argue for the soul, surely if there's a soul in that tiny group of dividing cells, it would not go to hell for having been aborted ? I am not sure I'd want to nominate when life starts, but I am certain that, for example, taking a medication that causes a miscarriage during the first weeks after conception, is not murder. Beyond that, I don't like it, I am against it as a form of birth control, I think to say the mother has rights and the child has none, is insane. However, on the other hand, I can see places where it's not as black and white as we'd perhaps like it to be.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Christian Graus wrote:
be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ?
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything. My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make. Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did. What about adoption?
Christian Graus wrote:
it would not go to hell for having been aborted
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster. I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins. Like you say, choices are not always black and white. It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words. It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you think that's harsh of me?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Christian Graus wrote:
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Christian Graus wrote:
be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ?
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything. My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make. Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did. What about adoption?
Christian Graus wrote:
it would not go to hell for having been aborted
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster. I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins. Like you say, choices are not always black and white. It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words. It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you think that's harsh of me?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
The adoption argument depends for its persuasiveness on its continued failure to persuade. There are estimated to be about 1 million abortions per year in the US. There are also estimated to be something like half a million people wanting to adopt (about 100,000 adoptions take place each year, roughly half of those within families). If the anti-abortion crowd was successful and noone got an abortion, then the demand for children to adopt would be satisfied in a year. After that, the overwhelming majority would end up in orphanages. You probably think that ending up in an orphanage would be a better fate than being aborted. Be that as it may, adoption is, as I say, a readily available option only because the anti-abortionists aren't successful and thus there is a shortage of children available. If abortion rates were drastically cut, then there are only two realistic possibilities to deal with the associated increase in potential fertility: 1. Effective birth control --- and perhaps also by an increase in the desired size of families. 2. Millions of children raised in orphanages. I suggest that targeting 1. directly rather than focussing on abortion might be the most effective policy.
John Carson
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
The adoption argument depends for its persuasiveness on its continued failure to persuade. There are estimated to be about 1 million abortions per year in the US. There are also estimated to be something like half a million people wanting to adopt (about 100,000 adoptions take place each year, roughly half of those within families). If the anti-abortion crowd was successful and noone got an abortion, then the demand for children to adopt would be satisfied in a year. After that, the overwhelming majority would end up in orphanages. You probably think that ending up in an orphanage would be a better fate than being aborted. Be that as it may, adoption is, as I say, a readily available option only because the anti-abortionists aren't successful and thus there is a shortage of children available. If abortion rates were drastically cut, then there are only two realistic possibilities to deal with the associated increase in potential fertility: 1. Effective birth control --- and perhaps also by an increase in the desired size of families. 2. Millions of children raised in orphanages. I suggest that targeting 1. directly rather than focussing on abortion might be the most effective policy.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
1 million abortions per year in the US
The vast majority of those are of convenience; birth control after the fact, if you will. I think that is wrong, so yeah I agree that your option 1 is the desired approach. I know that pro-abortionists love to laugh at people who say this, but abstenence really does work for preventing unwanted pregnancies every time it is tried. I am also a realist. Unwanted pregancies do happen. My daughter became pregnant at 16. It was a pretty traumatic thing as you can imagine. The father was a complete zero. Neither her mother nor I counciled her about what she should do. She chose on her own to keep the baby and I am glad she did. We would have loved and accepted her even if she had choosen to do otherwise. It has been difficult for her, no doubt, but God has provided for her...He gave her a wonderful husband (not the baby diddy) and their needs have been met. My grandson has been a blessing who has brought together and strenghtend our family even before he was born. So, as I said to Christian, my motives aren't to force people to do anything, but to consider the alternatives that lie beyond convenience. I think that the adoption system can handle the small number of births that are the result of rape or incest, which was the point I was making to Christian.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Al Beback wrote:
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Then why is suicide illegal - even for terminally ill patients?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Then why is suicide illegal - even for terminally ill patients?
That's a good question; I don't know why it's illegal. I suppose because it deters idiots who may want to jump off buildings and end up harming/killing other people in the process. It's kind of a dumb law IMO; you can't punish someone who's committed suicide.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Christian Graus wrote:
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Christian Graus wrote:
be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ?
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything. My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make. Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did. What about adoption?
Christian Graus wrote:
it would not go to hell for having been aborted
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster. I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins. Like you say, choices are not always black and white. It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words. It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you think that's harsh of me?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Sure - but there's a conflict of interest here. You either have to care for the raped girl, or for the baby.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything.
OK, fair enough.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make.
OK, so you'd talk to the girl who was raped and counsel her to keep the baby ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did
No, I am not suggesting that. As I said elsewhere, abortion is not something I'd take lightly. I am sure in some cases, women go on to regret it deeply.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
Well, again, I would not dictate to this hypothetical girl what to do, either. I'm talking about giving her options. I don't see pressuring her to bear her rapists child as a good option. I would imagine that if she has the child, but gives it up, that could also cause her unhappiness down the track. There's no easy option here, that I can see.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster.
Well, I'm not sure of your point here. I was trying to say that sparing the mother here doesn't condemn the unborn child.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins.
Yeah, I guess so...
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words.
I agree.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you th
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
The adoption argument depends for its persuasiveness on its continued failure to persuade. There are estimated to be about 1 million abortions per year in the US. There are also estimated to be something like half a million people wanting to adopt (about 100,000 adoptions take place each year, roughly half of those within families). If the anti-abortion crowd was successful and noone got an abortion, then the demand for children to adopt would be satisfied in a year. After that, the overwhelming majority would end up in orphanages. You probably think that ending up in an orphanage would be a better fate than being aborted. Be that as it may, adoption is, as I say, a readily available option only because the anti-abortionists aren't successful and thus there is a shortage of children available. If abortion rates were drastically cut, then there are only two realistic possibilities to deal with the associated increase in potential fertility: 1. Effective birth control --- and perhaps also by an increase in the desired size of families. 2. Millions of children raised in orphanages. I suggest that targeting 1. directly rather than focussing on abortion might be the most effective policy.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Effective birth control --- and perhaps also by an increase in the desired size of families.
This is the core issue IMO, teenagers should have access to birth control, even without the parents consent, and education should take place to make girls aware of the negative personal effects of abortion, and the importance of birth control, both in general, but also condoms for avoiding STDs. I'd prefer we all just were chaste until marriage ( as I was ), but that's not the real world, so we should act to deal with the issue at the source, not by legislating after the fact.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Oakman wrote:
Then why is suicide illegal - even for terminally ill patients?
That's a good question; I don't know why it's illegal. I suppose because it deters idiots who may want to jump off buildings and end up harming/killing other people in the process. It's kind of a dumb law IMO; you can't punish someone who's committed suicide.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
I don't know why it's illegal
But, I'd guess you'd agree that it is a case where society tells its citizens what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Al Beback wrote:
I suppose because it deters idiots who may want to jump off buildings and end up harming/killing other people in the process
Niven & Pournelle came up with what is, to my mind, the perfect deterrent: a nice springy diving board on the top of the building, with a small sign beside it: "Evolution in Action."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Sure - but there's a conflict of interest here. You either have to care for the raped girl, or for the baby.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything.
OK, fair enough.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make.
OK, so you'd talk to the girl who was raped and counsel her to keep the baby ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did
No, I am not suggesting that. As I said elsewhere, abortion is not something I'd take lightly. I am sure in some cases, women go on to regret it deeply.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
Well, again, I would not dictate to this hypothetical girl what to do, either. I'm talking about giving her options. I don't see pressuring her to bear her rapists child as a good option. I would imagine that if she has the child, but gives it up, that could also cause her unhappiness down the track. There's no easy option here, that I can see.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster.
Well, I'm not sure of your point here. I was trying to say that sparing the mother here doesn't condemn the unborn child.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins.
Yeah, I guess so...
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words.
I agree.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you th
Christian Graus wrote:
Not at all - my main point going into this discussion was not that I am for abortion, I am not. It's that holding black and white views and judging people who have to deal with situations we have not been in, is a mistake that borders on self righteousness and arrogance.
Amen.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry?
Are you really that dumb or just playing dumb? Why do you think they use his middle name? Do they use anyone else's middle name? Why the difference? It is because they realise that many of their supporters are tiny-brained and bigoted enough to consider that this is a mark against Obama.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this issue?
I was careful. I referred to "many Republicans", not simply to "Republicans".
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Are you really that dumb or just playing dumb? Why do you think they use his middle name? Do they use anyone else's middle name? Why the difference? It is because they realise that many of their supporters are tiny-brained and bigoted enough to consider that this is a mark against Obama.
I'm pretty damn sure I'm not the one playing dumb. The man has a muslim name. We live in a country that recently had thousands of its citizens murdered in the name of Islam. It stands to reason that there might be at least a few individuals who might be a bit concerned about that association. In fact, the altogether bizarre coincidnece of getting our first president with a muslim name only a few years after such an incident almost deserves a twilight zone theme. It is compltetly fucking unbelievable. But, it is hardly the fault of any republican that his name is Hussien and there is absolutely nothing wrong, racist or xenophobic about using it. It is his fucking name. blame his muslim marxit dad, not me (oh, wait, you have to blame me cause I'm the conservative. Ok, never mind)
John Carson wrote:
I was careful. I referred to "many Republicans", not simply to "Republicans".
Well, how many? Can't we get specific? Ain't there a poll out there somewhere?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
People who hold any religious beliefs do not believe what I want them to believe. Fundamentalists are a problem because of 1. the policy positions that fundamentalism implies and with which I disagree, 2. the quality of mind (dogmatic, not evidence-based) that is characteristic of fundamentalists and which leads to poor decision making in government.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalists are a problem because of 1. the policy positions that fundamentalism implies and with which I disagree, 2. the quality of mind (dogmatic, not evidence-based) that is characteristic of fundamentalists and which leads to poor decision making in government.
Sorry, John, but that sounds like fundamentalist dogma to me. And I am well trained in sniffing it out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I thought my answer was implicit in the question, but to be clear, the answer is no. I also don't believe that the unborn baby is any less important.
Sure - but there's a conflict of interest here. You either have to care for the raped girl, or for the baby.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I wasn't talking about forcing anyone to do anything.
OK, fair enough.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
My motivation is to lead people to consider the options and consequences of the choices they make.
OK, so you'd talk to the girl who was raped and counsel her to keep the baby ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Are you suggesting that choosing to abort an unborn child doesn't cause long term suffering as well...there are those who are close to me that will tell you it did
No, I am not suggesting that. As I said elsewhere, abortion is not something I'd take lightly. I am sure in some cases, women go on to regret it deeply.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
What about adoption?
Well, again, I would not dictate to this hypothetical girl what to do, either. I'm talking about giving her options. I don't see pressuring her to bear her rapists child as a good option. I would imagine that if she has the child, but gives it up, that could also cause her unhappiness down the track. There's no easy option here, that I can see.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
No, but neither would a 1 month old infant thrown into a dumpster.
Well, I'm not sure of your point here. I was trying to say that sparing the mother here doesn't condemn the unborn child.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I guess we will have to disagree on the timing of when life begins.
Yeah, I guess so...
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's easy to say what we would do or not do in a particular instance, but until we are placed into that situation it's only just words.
I agree.
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It's often my wish for these hard-line black-and-white people, that God would place them into these types of situations until they learn to show others the grace that He has shown them. Do you th
Christian Graus wrote:
You either have to care for the raped girl, or for the baby
I don't believe it's either/or.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so you'd talk to the girl who was raped and counsel her to keep the baby ?
No, this...
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm talking about giving her options.
No pressure in any direction
Christian Graus wrote:
There's no easy option here
Correct...all the options bring pain of some sort. That would be part of the council I would provide to the victim. Nice discussion...
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You either have to care for the raped girl, or for the baby
I don't believe it's either/or.
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so you'd talk to the girl who was raped and counsel her to keep the baby ?
No, this...
Christian Graus wrote:
I'm talking about giving her options.
No pressure in any direction
Christian Graus wrote:
There's no easy option here
Correct...all the options bring pain of some sort. That would be part of the council I would provide to the victim. Nice discussion...
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Nice discussion...
Yeah, it certainly was. I suspect we're saying roughly the same thing. I think the option needs to exist, but only with counselling and non judgemental support, it's not something I'd say should always happen, just something that should be possible. I actually use this example b/c I recall growing up, a girl in Ireland having to go to England for an abortion, and not come back, because of the hatred that was thrown her way, having been raped by her father, and not wanting to have the baby. It seemed to me that she had suffered enough.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
John Carson wrote:
Are you really that dumb or just playing dumb? Why do you think they use his middle name? Do they use anyone else's middle name? Why the difference? It is because they realise that many of their supporters are tiny-brained and bigoted enough to consider that this is a mark against Obama.
I'm pretty damn sure I'm not the one playing dumb. The man has a muslim name. We live in a country that recently had thousands of its citizens murdered in the name of Islam. It stands to reason that there might be at least a few individuals who might be a bit concerned about that association. In fact, the altogether bizarre coincidnece of getting our first president with a muslim name only a few years after such an incident almost deserves a twilight zone theme. It is compltetly fucking unbelievable. But, it is hardly the fault of any republican that his name is Hussien and there is absolutely nothing wrong, racist or xenophobic about using it. It is his fucking name. blame his muslim marxit dad, not me (oh, wait, you have to blame me cause I'm the conservative. Ok, never mind)
John Carson wrote:
I was careful. I referred to "many Republicans", not simply to "Republicans".
Well, how many? Can't we get specific? Ain't there a poll out there somewhere?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty damn sure I'm not the one playing dumb. The man has a muslim name. We live in a country that recently had thousands of its citizens murdered in the name of Islam. It stands to reason that there might be at least a few individuals who might be a bit concerned about that association. In fact, the altogether bizarre coincidnece of getting our first president with a muslim name only a few years after such an incident almost deserves a twilight zone theme. It is compltetly f***ing unbelievable.
So you have now dropped the pretence and effectively admitted that this is a matter of anti-Muslim bigotry --- and at the idiot level of what a person's middle name happens to be.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, it is hardly the fault of any republican that his name is Hussien and there is absolutely nothing wrong, racist or xenophobic about using it.
Back to playing dumb again.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, how many? Can't we get specific? Ain't there a poll out there somewhere?
Not to my knowledge. However, I figure that Republican politicians, radio hosts, Fox news blatherers and the like have a reasonable understanding of their base and what appeals to it.
John Carson
modified on Monday, October 20, 2008 7:14 PM
-
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalists are a problem because of 1. the policy positions that fundamentalism implies and with which I disagree, 2. the quality of mind (dogmatic, not evidence-based) that is characteristic of fundamentalists and which leads to poor decision making in government.
Sorry, John, but that sounds like fundamentalist dogma to me. And I am well trained in sniffing it out.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, John, but that sounds like fundamentalist dogma to me.
Sure it does. You like to view things in a binary world: either a person has to have no standards at all --- no basis for judging anything --- or be a fundamentalist. There is nothing inbetween. I disagree.
John Carson
-
Al Beback wrote:
I don't know why it's illegal
But, I'd guess you'd agree that it is a case where society tells its citizens what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Al Beback wrote:
I suppose because it deters idiots who may want to jump off buildings and end up harming/killing other people in the process
Niven & Pournelle came up with what is, to my mind, the perfect deterrent: a nice springy diving board on the top of the building, with a small sign beside it: "Evolution in Action."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But, I'd guess you'd agree that it is a case where society tells its citizens what they can and can't do with their bodies.
OK, there's an exception to the rule. But, again, it's a law that can be violated without consequence, so it's easy to ignore.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, John, but that sounds like fundamentalist dogma to me.
Sure it does. You like to view things in a binary world: either a person has to have no standards at all --- no basis for judging anything --- or be a fundamentalist. There is nothing inbetween. I disagree.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You like to view things in a binary world
At least I made it to binary...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.