Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on October 29, 2003, 01:23:45 PM
-
WASHINGTON — A new left-wing think tank — the Center for American Progress — unveiled itself Tuesday as the Democratic vaccine to what center supporters say is a plague of conservatism now dominating America.
"We think the debate has been unbalanced in the country," center president John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, told Fox News.
"The conservative movement has really built up an infrastructure of not just ideas, but the ability to kind of get out there and do the kind of hard communications work to sell to the American public," he added.
=====
Until the original blue collar hunting god fearing democrats take back the democratic party from the liberal socialist anti God same sex extemists, america will never seat them into power again.
Thank William Jefferson Clinton for the "plague of conservatism now dominating America".
Thank you Bubba
-
So I guess they are gonna put the two existing Liberals capable of independant thought there?
I can just imagine it now, about a year from now they will announce "we have figured out why the democrats have been losing election after election, it seems the American people are tired of being taxed to death, and tired of supporting everyone who doesn't feel like getting and holding a job!".
dago
-
It's a bit confusing the way you presented this Yeager. Could you post the link of what you are quoting? Also... the separation between the coat and your typing isn't really that clear.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"The conservative movement has really built up an infrastructure of not just ideas, but the ability to kind of get out there and do the kind of hard communications work to sell to the American public,"
We obviously can't have that. Where is the government? We need a law to forbid that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"We think the debate has been unbalanced in the country," center president John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, told Fox News.
By unblanced he means that the conservatives actually have a voice in the 'debate' now. LOL these people really have no clue as to why they lost power, thank God.
-
John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton, told Fox News.
====
I figured the above reference would suffice but heres the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101504,00.html
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"The conservative movement has really built up an infrastructure of not just ideas, but the ability to kind of get out there and do the kind of hard communications work to sell to the American public," he added.
LOL! The Liberals have no problem getting their "message" out, that's their main problem. LOL!
-
The word "liberal" and "think" in the same title? Isn't that some kind of oximoron? Hey, just kidding. Seriously though, this sounds more like a propaganda house, rather than a think-tank devoted to helping formulate governement policy. The excuse the liberal guy in this article used to explain the shift towards conservative thought in this country is that it's due to conservatives being better at getting their message out. It probably never occured to him that people may just like and believe that message more than the liberal message (which is...what again?). Is it the message that is shaping public opinion, or is public opinion shaping the (conservative) message? First thing they (the liberals) have to do is be able to articulate what their "message" is, instead of simply bashing the President, other prominant conservatives, and conserativism in general.
As a conservative my beliefs are, in no certain order, as follows:
1) Personal responsibility is the key to happiness and success, not the governement.
2) A woman should have a choice, i.e. to have sex or not. A fetus is a living creature, and only in the case of reasonable danger to the mother should an abortion be performed. (see belief no. 1 above)
3) Laws (even ones I disagree with, like allowing abortions on demand) must be obeyed. Don't like the law of the land? Work to change it, not simply look to the courts to over turn them.
4) Businesses create jobs, not the government. Government economic policies should promote that process, not stifle it.
5) Tax cuts stimulate the economy, in general; tax increases stifle it. It's my money, not the government's...they need to remember that.
6) Parents generally are much better suited to making decisions about their children than the government.
7) The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal Government over the people and the states, not the other way around. It doesn't guarantee either happiness or prosperity, only the chance to pursue it.
8) I'd prefer we work towards taking guns away from the criminals, not law abiding citizens.
9) Chain gangs, public floggings and executions should be brought back. Likewise, prison should be a punishment, not a "rehabilitation" opportunity. Make it unpleasant enough, and it will rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated.
10) Lawyers are the worst possible people to put in charge of making laws.
11) and most importantly, if you don't vote, then shut up!
There. Any liberals want to take a crack at listing what they believe are the core beliefs of liberalism? Then tell me if any of the nine candidates running for the Democratic ticket support even a simple majority of your beliefs.
-
When did the United Nations give the liberals permission to think?
-
^SLAM!!!!!!! :D
-
A liberal:
Complain about everyone that doesn't agree with your views, then claim that you want everyone to be free to express their own views.
-
Oh man.... Think.... liberal... oxymoron... permission... buahahahahahahahah! You guys are great!
-
Agreed. Here is another one:
Conservative:
Claims everyone who agrees with him is a patriot, and all others are traitors.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Agreed. Here is another one:
Conservative:
Claims everyone who agrees with him is a patriot, and all others are traitors.
Funny but I've never heard one conservative express this view. You must be confused, again.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Funny but I've never heard one conservative express this view. You must be confused, again.
Read Ann Coulter's book "Treason"
I'll sum it up for you, if you're not a conservative and if you don't agree with Bush, you're a traitor.
Now you've been told about one...
Would you like to hear about another? ;)
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Read Ann Coulter's book "Treason"
I'll sum it up for you, if you're not a conservative and if you don't agree with Bush, you're a traitor.
Now you've been told about one...
Would you like to hear about another? ;)
Really? Can you quote that for us? That's amazing! Give us the quote please. Did she say that if you're not a conservative and dont agree with Bush, you are a traitor? LOL! Did you read the book?
Even if Ann Coulter said that ( and she didn't), it wouldn't mean conservatives all feel that way.
You dolt! LOL
You are incapable of stating anything remotely factual it seems
-
I read the book. She never said that.
I'll post some snips from the book in coming days. Great stuff.
Well documented and foot noted. Quotes, articles, etc.
-
DmdNexus, You remind me of another fanatic Bush basher that was banned from the BBS, what was his name? The guy that always called Bush Chimpy.
Doesn't matter, you will probably join him at some point.
-
^ ahh the wonderful weazel. Can't say I miss his posts :)
-
I can't even fathom what a Liberal-Think-Tank... thinks about.
Let me guess....eaves dropping into a Liberal Think Thank discussion this is how it will probably go:
L1 = Liberal 1
L2 = Liberal 2
L1: Did you hug a tree today?
L2: Yesth... my next door'sth neighbor'sth hasth a gorgeousth dogwood. And sneake over there this morning and gave it a big hug.
[pause]
I think my neighbor'sth a consthervative.
L1: Why do you say that?
L2: He'th not vewry nice. He opened his door, called me a Jeezus H Karist fugget, and sic'ed histh pitbullsth on me.
L1: Why do Conservatives hate us?
L2: I think it's becausthe they eat cow meat. And cowsth have steroidsth in them, and makesth them agressthive and mean.
L1: The cows are agressive and mean?
L2: No the consthervativeth that eat the meat.
L1. Ah yes, we should ban cows so there's more love in the world.
L2: I agwree, and grow more thsoy and bean curdsth, brusthel spwroutths, alphafa too and kelp... I like kepl... it hasth lotsth of iron.
L1: Let's call Ted Kennedy... he'll make us a law!
Now let's ease drop in on a Conservative Think Tank
C1 = Conservative 1
C2 = Conservative 2
C1: Hey, what's the body count up to today?
C2: We napalmed 3 terrorist camps - just a bunch of women and children wannabe suicide bombers...
C1: Yeah it's better if we whack em when their young!
C1: We started the war against Australia at midnight. Won't belong before Canteberra is free from those EVIL Ausie librals. We've killed a few hundred thousand terrorists so far, I'm still waiting for the Germany count .. should be a few thousand more.
C1: That's good news. Those daisey cutter bombs work fantastic... vaporizes them terrorists real good - yuck yuck.
C2: I need to get a new automatic assault rifle mine jammed this morning.
C1: What happened?
C2: This morning, I caught that sissy liberal neighbor of mine humping my front yard tree. I tried to shoot him but the damn belt jammed on my SAW... finally had to sic my dawgs on him. I just hope he hasn't infected my tree.
-
Wow. You actually put thought into that post? LOL!
-
Actually, that was pretty funny, DN.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
C1: Hey, what's the body count up to today?
C2: We napalmed 3 terrorist camps - just a bunch of women and children wannabe suicide bombers...
napalm, fun for the whole family
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Even if Ann Coulter said that ( and she didn't), it wouldn't mean conservatives all feel that way.
Why not, some of the conservatives are makeing sweeping generalisations about liberals.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Funny but I've never heard one conservative express this view. You must be confused, again.
No Udie, it is you, the little weakling who is easily swayed by those who trick you into believing they care about your well being, who is confused.
Of course, because you are incapable of forming a train of thought of your own, you must parrot what others around you convinced you to think. Since you cant use the age arguement your peers around here use, you try to invalidate my points by saying I am confused.
First, I'm not a liberal. I hate them as much as I hate conservatives. To me both sides are the same bandwagon of idiots who think they are superior to the other. Both equally idiotic, both equally damaging to our country.
I'm not gonna waste my time Googling quotes and articles in a pathetic effort to "win" an internet arguement (Special Olympics), so here, I'll use one of the most idiotic phrases of the decade, one which made me cringe just as much as when that idiot Bill Clinton opened his mouth to make the rest of his liberal cronies look like morons:
"You are either with us or against us."
I hate that bipolar way of reasoning.
That bull**** can only by spewed by someone who is actively looking for a confrontation.
Liberals and Conservatives: Unable to even attempt to look objectively at anything, the unwashed fools of today, no different from any zealot in history. If you dont agree with one, they view you as the other.
Of course, this post, like 90% of the posts around here, was a complete waste of time since you will discard it because you have already invalidated me as an enemy of ideals, thus rendering any points or views I try to make moot.
-
^ you are truely one effed up little idiot animal. What do you mean by our country? You a rican man you ain't part of our country your a "subject" :rofl
Nice to see that I could troll a big post out of you from once simple, and truthful sentence :) I'm sitting here trying to remember the last time I changed a philisophical or political view and I can't. I've rethought my value system over the past year and found out that for my life I was pretty much spot on.
trolling you is easy :)
-
Originally posted by Udie
^ you are truely one effed up little idiot animal. What do you mean by our country? You a rican man you ain't part of our country your a "subject" :rofl
Nice to see that I could troll a big post out of you from once simple, and truthful sentence :) I'm sitting here trying to remember the last time I changed a philisophical or political view and I can't. I've rethought my value system over the past year and found out that for my life I was pretty much spot on.
trolling you is easy :)
Oh now you were trolling!!! hahahah oh man, you sure cast a good line!!!
:) :D :aok (and all other retarded smilies)
You got me there, Udie!!!
Yeah right you tard, I got that stupid trick figured out.
P.S: Your posts are really begging of a political science education. Thats all I'll say about that.
-
Liberals and Conservatives: Unable to even attempt to look objectively at anything, the unwashed fools of today, no different from any zealot in history. If you dont agree with one, they view you as the other.
I dont even want to know what an conservative vs liberal is...
Its kind of refreshing to be able to judge each situation with fresh eyes every time...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
I dont even want to know what an conservative vs liberal is...
Its kind of refreshing to be able to judge each situation with fresh eyes every time...
Definetly.
-
awe did I upset the troller by trolling him? get used to it :) you guys have been doing it for years and then joking about the reaction in the squad forum. Nice to see you on the recieving end....
-
Originally posted by JBA
I read the book. She never said that.
I'll post some snips from the book in coming days. Great stuff.
Well documented and foot noted. Quotes, articles, etc.
Oh please do.
-
Originally posted by Udie
awe did I upset the troller by trolling him? get used to it :) you guys have been doing it for years and then joking about the reaction in the squad forum. Nice to see you on the recieving end....
Trolling? LOL, reminds me of this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53128&highlight=traitors) other "I was trolling!" gem.
Say something, get owned, claim it was a troll.
-
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell this means:
"Going forward, we will need new labels and new ideas. Many of them will be created right here at the Center for American Progress," Clark said from New Hampshire in a speech beamed into the conference via satellite.
-
I think its obvious. They are so sure that Liberalism is a good thing that the issue has to be its lack of proper marketing.
I think the great majority of folks in America are right leaning when it comes to fiscal policy and left leaning when it comes to social policy. I'd say I fall into this category.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell this means:
Its just bullcrap said to make him and his association look smarty progressive.
-
Haven't we covered all this ground before?
Shuckins
-
I tend to agree with Animal's asessment and less with yours MT.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I tend to agree with Animal's asessment and less with yours MT.
I assume you mean the first part of my post. I think both My and Animal's take can be true. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.
-
Originally posted by JBA
I read the book.
That explains alot
-
We need more labels? how about getting rid of those we got?
-
Originally posted by Animal
Trolling? LOL, reminds me of this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53128&highlight=traitors) other "I was trolling!" gem.
Say something, get owned, claim it was a troll.
huh? yer losin it dude...
how much time did I get you to waste on that? :rofl :aok
-
A few seconds. Click search, type "traitors" type "Grunherz". Less than it took you to figure out to say "I was trolling" in a miserable attempt to save face.
Oh, and by the way:
Originally posted by Udie
Originally posted by Animal
Agreed. Here is another one:
Conservative:
Claims everyone who agrees with him is a patriot, and all others are traitors.
Funny but I've never heard one conservative express this view. You must be confused, again.
-
its funny how the gauntlet was thrown down early on in this thread for a libral to put out an idea out there that Americans can support and yet none has posted any. A few non-party types (either of them) have done a great job of spewing there hatred for either party, but neither have said what kind of values they believe in.
I find this odd cause a person has to believe in somthing, not nescesarily saying they need to follow a party line.
anyhow, still waiting librals???????
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
C2: I need to get a new automatic assault rifle mine jammed this morning.
C1: What happened?
C2: This morning, I caught that sissy liberal neighbor of mine humping my front yard tree.I tried to shoot him but the damn belt jammed on my SAW... finally had to sic my dawgs on him. I just hope he hasn't infected my tree.
This is total BS.
What kind of saw has a belt?
Any real right thinking AMERICAN has a saw with a CHAIN.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I assume you mean the first part of my post.
I assume you think I actually read what you wrote. I usually make it about 5 words into your posts before it all turns to blah blah blah you whiney liberal. You can't even handle someone liking Animal's bs better than yours. Face it... he has young bs with a tight ass. Your's is old and wrinkled.
MiniD
-
I'm fascinated at the fixation some of you guys have with that traitor thread, my good old buddy Dowding in particular now feels compelled to join every thread I start and at some point call attention to it...
Really hillarious for it was a very effective troll and quickly indeed draw a bunch of sterotyped "grun you undemocratic nazi basige" responses from the usual sauspects...
I actually thought about titling the thread "Heroes" to see what the response would be, but that would be confusing coming from me...
Hey but if you guys think that is a good thread for you, mention it all you want... :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
This is total BS.
What kind of saw has a belt?
Any real right thinking AMERICAN has a saw with a CHAIN.
Yo Doofus
a SAW is a Squad Automatic Weapon
-
yea umm...the SAW squad automatic weapon aka M-249 is a 5.56mm (NATO) fully automatic machine gun that can either be BELT FED or magazine fed (no weapons instructor will ever recomend doing this unless it is a brand new magazine)
still waiting for a libral to post what they stand for
-
Sorry,
In my neck of the woods, you say saw and tree in the same breath, and... well you get the drift...
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Read Ann Coulter's book "Treason"
I'll sum it up for you, if you're not a conservative and if you don't agree with Bush, you're a traitor.
Now you've been told about one...
Would you like to hear about another? ;)
Here's one from the biatch:
Dems to Torch: Only Crooks Who Can Win
by Ann Coulter
October 2 , 2002
Apart from treason, this is all the Democratic Party stands for anymore.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I assume you think I actually read what you wrote.
Silly me. Since you commented on it I assumed you read it. What the heck was I thinking?
And what's with the knee-jerk bile at my posts?
-
Was a joke man. was a joke. I don't really think your bs is old and wrinkled.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Animal
A few seconds. Click search, type "traitors" type "Grunherz". Less than it took you to figure out to say "I was trolling" in a miserable attempt to save face.
Oh, and by the way:
Funny but I've never heard one conservative express this view. You must be confused, again.
[/B][/QUOTE]
ok what ever. you got trolled and ya hate it. Try and deflect it anyway you want. I ain't got time to mess with you today busy at work. So I'll throw ya back in to catch you again another day :)
-
I guess they decided it was time for some new material for their mind control ray. The conservatives are only laughing at their old stuff causing the liberals to turn on one another.
-
to some extent I agree with animal.... I hate anyone who get's in my way. Liberals get in my way a whole lot more often than conservatives tho so it is "the lesser of two evils".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to some extent I agree with animal.... I hate anyone who get's in my way. Liberals get in my way a whole lot more often than conservatives tho so it is "the lesser of two evils".
lazs
How do you know when a liberal is in the car infront of you? (besides the obvious anti-bush bumber stickers, and legalize marijuana and 420 decals)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to some extent I agree with animal.... I hate anyone who get's in my way. Liberals get in my way a whole lot more often than conservatives tho so it is "the lesser of two evils".
lazs
At this point in life both sides are getting in my way and nerves about equally, hence the intensity of my rants.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
How do you know when a liberal is in the car infront of you? (besides the obvious anti-bush bumber stickers, and legalize marijuana and 420 decals)
'Cause she's putting on her makeup while driving?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
its funny how the gauntlet was thrown down early on in this thread for a libral to put out an idea out there that Americans can support and yet none has posted any. A few non-party types (either of them) have done a great job of spewing there hatred for either party, but neither have said what kind of values they believe in.
I find this odd cause a person has to believe in somthing, not nescesarily saying they need to follow a party line.
anyhow, still waiting librals???????
Yeah, I'm still waiting too. Until they do, this thread will continue to read like a Jerry Springer Show transcript, rather than a real debate over ideas.
-
I guess a liberal think tank really isn't a bad idea. It's about time someone started thinking for them. :p I just hope they don't limit their thinking to only how to regain power.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Was a joke man. was a joke. I don't really think your bs is old and wrinkled.
MiniD
Awwwww... I feel all warm and fuzzy all of the sudden. C'mere and give us a big group hug.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Yeah, I'm still waiting too. Until they do, this thread will continue to read like a Jerry Springer Show transcript, rather than a real debate over ideas.
You all are liberal experts... you keep calling everyone liberals..
Karist you all even call each other liberals.
So you ought to be well versed in the liberal diatribe to re-iterate it here.
I swear you all are worse then a bunch of women grabbing at the same bra at a clearance sell.
Why don't you make up your own list and post it... argue amongst your selves... get your selves riled up and horny about hating liberals and then go find a hotel room to celebrate with one of your self congratulating "self abusing" conservative orgies.
-
Libral Ideals (Gauntlet accepted)
1. Opportunity should be equalized for all. No one is less or more deserving of the benefits available in our system.
2. Women should have a right to choose to be an incubator or not.
3. No religion should have a precedence in our government or any of its institutions.
4. Freedom and rights should apply to all regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
5. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority. Hence part of our government's mandate should include those protections.
6. The environment is for everyone to enjoy and for us to protect. Future generations should not have to pay for our short term gain.
7. Any government intrusion or restriction of the personal liberties of a citizen must be questioned.
I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think its obvious. They are so sure that Liberalism is a good thing that the issue has to be its lack of proper marketing.
I think the great majority of folks in America are right leaning when it comes to fiscal policy and left leaning when it comes to social policy. I'd say I fall into this category.
The great majority? Fork over your numerical estimate....60-40...70-30....:)
-
mt...
1... equalized? no... everyone should be judged on ability not need.
2.....women should not be able to murder a self sustaining human anymore in the womb than they would if their child were say 2 or 30 years old.
3....correct allthough that does not mean that some religious morality should not take precedence over some political morality
4... this is also correct... even white males should not be treated unfairly. by the same token tho... it is ok to tell stevie wonder that he can't drive the bus.
5.... protection should be equal... even rthe rich the white and the males should get equal protection.
6... if protecting the environment steps all over peoples rights then we better be damn sure that we really are "protecting" something and not just tree hugging.
7.... this is really the only guidline that we need. the others are just detail.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt...
2.....women should not be able to murder a self sustaining human anymore in the womb than they would if their child were say 2 or 30 years old.
lazs
So Laz, when you toss off do you feel guilty for killing millions of potential humans?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Libral Ideals (Gauntlet accepted)
Ohhh.... goodie.1. Opportunity should be equalized for all. No one is less or more deserving of the benefits available in our system.
This is not liberal. Let me rephrase it for you:
1. We will decide who is more or less deserving of benefits available in our system.2. Women should have a right to choose to be an incubator or not.
But only men should be held responsible for it.3. No religion should have a precedence in our government or any of its institutions.
Especially if it is a religion that we view as too conservative. Oh... and please give money to the Dali Lama.4. Freedom and rights should apply to all regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
And you can only bring it up if you're not male, white, hetrosexual or christian.5. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority. Hence part of our government's mandate should include those protections.
Just make sure that the "minority" you are championing makes up a "majority" of the voters.6. The environment is for everyone to enjoy and for us to protect. Future generations should not have to pay for our short term gain.
Unless republicans are in charge... then the government is for everyone to ridicule. Future generations should accept that they'll just have to flip the bill for the additional programs we put in place today.7. Any government intrusion or restriction of the personal liberties of a citizen must be questioned.
Unless it involves gun control.
MiniD
I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now. [/B][/QUOTE]
-
nexus... what part of "self sustaining human" didn't yu understand?
I'm not against killing people in the least... think it's a good idea in a whole lot of cases but..... I think we better have a pretty good reason before we do it.
lazs
-
Anyone unable to accept some compromise is an idiot. I agree with lazs on the self sustaining thing. 99.6% of legal abortions in this country don't fall into this category however.
So whats the deal mini? Can't find anything wrong with what I said so you need to rewrite it to make a point?
:aok
-
I find it funny that the same fetus status that can legally be aborted can also get you a murder charge if you kill it.
What's the difference between kicking a pregnat woman in the stomach and killing a fetus or having a doctor kill it.
Which is it? Is it a life only when someone wants it to be considered a life ?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm not against killing people in the least... think it's a good idea in a whole lot of cases but..... I think we better have a pretty good reason before we do it.
lazs
A woman can take 3 birthcontrol pills the morning after having sex... and have a 99% chance of aborting a fertilized egg.
Is the next step to ban birth control pills?
And what if a young woman does get pregnant... and doesn't have a job... and can't support that child... and has to put that child up for adoption.... or worse doesn't and the child has to grow up impoverished, and learn how to survive by stealing and becoming a criminal, a gang member, or drug user/dealer.
What kind of life is that for that child?
And the mother - who may have had a future.. but through a poor choice in judgement must suffer the rest of her life...
And what about the man? No penalty for men. except possibly child support.... what if he were a rapist?
I would like to see every one who is anti-abortion... adopt a teenage child.... a handicapped child.... or else STFU.
There are plenty of children alive today that need a home...
If you are a pro-lifer.. then to what you say you want others to do and go support a child who's already alive.
Is the solution for unwanted children.... to ban pre-marital sex?
Or ban sex between couples who don't earn a certain income?
Only the rich may have children? (Gee that will make the Republicans happy... fewer minorities in the world!)
The right wing wants to ban abortion... yet why don't they want to educate children about sex, safe sex, and responsible sex?
Why do they insist on making laws to ban freedom of speach between doctors and patients about family planning?
The question is when does a part of a human body become independently human.. a sentient being.. is it conception? Is it the intent of the man and the woman...
according to the bible it is when the baby draws it's first breath... (even if it's born premature)... it's when it breaches the womb and draws it's first breath.
Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Anti-abortionist, especially, the religious ones, forget their own hipocracy because even God told the Jews to kill children of their enemies.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
-
according to the bible it is when the baby draws it's first breath... (even if it's born premature)... it's when it breaches the womb and draws it's first breath.
Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
So why is Scott Peterson on trial for a double murder?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So why is Scott Peterson on trial for a double murder?
Don't ask me to explain why conservatives are screwed up.
Go ask a bible thumper
-
the conservatives put him on trial for double murder?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So whats the deal mini? Can't find anything wrong with what I said so you need to rewrite it to make a point?
:aok
Actually... couldn't find anything correct with what you said. Though... I do agree they need to be re-written to actually make a point.
MiniD
-
nexus... still having trouble with that pesky "self sustaining" thing?
I don't care what point we decide that a human is a human but we better agree.... When it is a human is not the decision of the person carrying the child. It can't be human and murder at 6 mos. after fertilization if someone hurts the mother and causes an abortion but not murder if a doctor does it.
Like I said.... got nothing against killing people.... just have he guts to admit that is what you are doing and...... have a damn good reason... Not getting around to it because you were too busy for 5 months doesn't fall under "damn good reason".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like I said.... got nothing against killing people.... just have he guts to admit that is what you are doing and...... have a damn good reason... Not getting around to it because you were too busy for 5 months doesn't fall under "damn good reason".
lazs
Here's where we do agree...
Once a woman realizes she's late... there's not reason to deliberate... a decision has to be made.
I'm more inclined to say 4 months pregnant... take it to term.
Up to 3 months... it's abortable.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... couldn't find anything correct with what you said. Though... I do agree they need to be re-written to actually make a point.
MiniD
Ahh, you assumed I was speaking for all liberals. I can see how my post might have seemed that I was. It was however my personal ideals. I should have made that clear. They are liberal ideals that I hold. Not all of my ideals may be defined as liberal.
I am for example not against gun ownership.
So you see there is no correct or incorrect. You may disagree with my ideals, but they are correctly mine.
-
well..... see? we are not that far off in our thinking.... simply establish a point where a person is a person wheather it is in or out of a womb and at that point.... give him the same rights as everyone else... now... if you want to make a law that says people with birth deffects or people who are unable to pay their own way can be executed.... fine... abort away at any point in the pregnancy.
In the case of abort or kill the mother... well... not many of those cases anymore but... I would say that the mother is the inoccent party in that case.
lazs
-
mt... join the NRA and i will forgive ya for that really effeminate post.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
i will forgive ya for that really effeminate post.
lazs
Why do you hate women so much?
Wasn't your mother a woman? :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt... join the NRA and i will forgive ya for that really effeminate post.
lazs
You pay the dues, I'll sign.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
to some extent I agree with animal.... I hate anyone who get's in my way. Liberals get in my way a whole lot more often than conservatives tho so it is "the lesser of two evils".
lazs
SHACK! (Christ, whats the world coming to, Lazs and I agreeing alot in the last year or so, except on the "women" thing....)
-
nexus... I love women... I hold doors open for em... I can be around em for hours at a time sometimes and they enrich my life.
That doesn't mean I want em making any decisions that might affect me tho. And neither should you.
rip.... what "women thing"?
mt... if you want toi keep your gun rights then the NRA is your best ally. I would think you would want to support them... I will settle for your support at the voting booth tho
lazs
-
Lazs, women are equal to men in my book, in pay, in power, in voting, in all issues, and in MOST cases, have level heads compared to men....(except for 5 days out of each month)
-
and maybe 5 days before that and maybe 5 days after that and maybe sometimes for no reason at all.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
A woman can take 3 birthcontrol pills the morning after having sex... and have a 99% chance of aborting a fertilized egg.
Is the next step to ban birth control pills?
And what if a young woman does get pregnant... and doesn't have a job... and can't support that child... and has to put that child up for adoption.... or worse doesn't and the child has to grow up impoverished, and learn how to survive by stealing and becoming a criminal, a gang member, or drug user/dealer.
What kind of life is that for that child?
And the mother - who may have had a future.. but through a poor choice in judgement must suffer the rest of her life...
And what about the man? No penalty for men. except possibly child support.... what if he were a rapist?
I would like to see every one who is anti-abortion... adopt a teenage child.... a handicapped child.... or else STFU.
There are plenty of children alive today that need a home...
If you are a pro-lifer.. then to what you say you want others to do and go support a child who's already alive.
Is the solution for unwanted children.... to ban pre-marital sex?
Or ban sex between couples who don't earn a certain income?
Only the rich may have children? (Gee that will make the Republicans happy... fewer minorities in the world!)
The right wing wants to ban abortion... yet why don't they want to educate children about sex, safe sex, and responsible sex?
Why do they insist on making laws to ban freedom of speach between doctors and patients about family planning?
The question is when does a part of a human body become independently human.. a sentient being.. is it conception? Is it the intent of the man and the woman...
according to the bible it is when the baby draws it's first breath... (even if it's born premature)... it's when it breaches the womb and draws it's first breath.
Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Anti-abortionist, especially, the religious ones, forget their own hipocracy because even God told the Jews to kill children of their enemies.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
You have no idea how badly you show you ignorance when you quote scripture:)
-
Rip,
Knew a guy once who wouldn't allow his wife to have her five days each month. Talk about a male-chauvinist pig!
Shuckins
-
5. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority. Hence part of our government's mandate should include those protections.
SO minoritys should have more rights than majoritys...I thaught it was equality?
2. Women should have a right to choose to be an incubator or not.
Woman have a choice....and that choice is to use birth control or keep her legs closed
6. The environment is for everyone to enjoy and for us to protect. Future generations should not have to pay for our short term gain.
this is NOT a libral ideal....if an off roader or hunter wanted to enjoy the environment they A. destroy it rather than savor it and B. use evil guns to kill the happless animals.
librals dont seem to want to protect the environment rather keep it from anyone by putting up a huge fence around it that says "keep out"
anyhow....MT those arnt all bad ideas but u forgot
1. Health care for all no matter how much it costs
2. Removing the guns from ALL citizens (except criminals..send them to rehab for there bad thaughts)
3. Make everything equal so that no matter how much or how little u work u have the same as the next guy.
Those are just my impressions on what librals stand for
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ahh, you assumed I was speaking for all liberals. I can see how my post might have seemed that I was. It was however my personal ideals. I should have made that clear. They are liberal ideals that I hold. Not all of my ideals may be defined as liberal.
Ya.. I did. That is because someone asked for a list of things liberals could champion. With most of what you wrote, the organization being cited most likely feels they are saying exactly what you wrote... basically its close to party lines. Of course, its implimentation is a whole different story.I am for example not against gun ownership.
Who said anything about gun ownership. Now why would you chose that word instead of the one I used?So you see there is no correct or incorrect. You may disagree with my ideals, but they are correctly mine.
More power to you. Its the difference between having opinions and generating policy.
BTW... so you know... here's my oppinions on what you mentioned:
1. Opportunities can never be equalized for everyone unless neputism is outlawed, organizations are banned and all wealth is evenly distributed to every single person. Other than that... I'd like to see a utopia where everyone got equal consideration too.
2. Abortion should not be used as the first step in birth control. As a result, defining "abortable" by law will always be flawed. Right now it, combined with child support laws, is skewed too far towards the whims of the woman. She can chose to abort regardless of what the father wants, or she can chose to have the baby regardless of what the father wants. "Sholdn't be forced to be an incubator" aplies... but "shouldn't be forced to be a father" does not?
3. I totally agree... when the word precedence is used.
4. I totally agree except for the use of the word regardless. Why not just say "freedom of rights should aply to all equally" and not bother with defining who will be the particulars that are protected? It is a classic blunder these days. Unless you fit into one of the predefined "we'll watch out for you" sections, you don't really get the benifit of the first part of the sentance.
5. A government is measured by its equal concern for all of its citizens.
... more after the movie.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Rude
The great majority? Fork over your numerical estimate....60-40...70-30....:)
I took a straw poll in my house and its 100-0
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Rude
You have no idea how badly you show you ignorance when you quote scripture:)
that's because bible scriptures are ignorant.... just read them.. they speak for them selves.
-
Originally posted by MidnightTarget
Libral Ideals (Gauntlet accepted)
1. Opportunity should be equalized for all. No one is less or more deserving of the benefits available in our system.
2. Women should have a right to choose to be an incubator or not.
3. No religion should have a precedence in our government or any of its institutions.
4. Freedom and rights should apply to all regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.
5. A democracy is measured by its protection of the minority, not its service to the majority. Hence part of our government's mandate should include those protections.
6. The environment is for everyone to enjoy and for us to protect. Future generations should not have to pay for our short term gain.
7. Any government intrusion or restriction of the personal liberties of a citizen must be questioned.
I'm sure there are more, but these will do for now.
I applaud your willingness to put down your liberal beliefs. Am I correct in assuming you believe these are, in general, representative of the beliefs of liberals in America? If not, why then do you describe them as “liberal?” It should be clear to most that reasonable people on both sides of the isle, as they say in Congress, have some common desires and beliefs, at least on the surface. The crux is in the “how”, not the what. By that I mean the method of achieving their goals. There is also very often a question of definition. A classic example is the definition of “peace.” To a tyrant, someone who wants to control the world for instance, “peace” means the absence of competing powers. To people of freedom, it means using reason and compromise to resolve differences. To pacifists, it simply means the absence of armed conflict. Taking your list above, let me comment on each item:
1) I pretty much agree, which is why I oppose affirmative action, race-based quotas, and the like. Since the preservation of affirmative action is a cornerstone of liberal social policy in this country, I’d say you are in the conservative camp on this one. Your liberal bent is, however, revealed in the second sentence. “Opportunity” does not equate to “benefit.” I’m assuming by benefit, you refer to “entitlements.”
2) Again, we agree in general, but not on definition or process. I believe life is precious, and should never be terminated simply as matter of convenience. I also believe it begins at conception, but concede the need to consider a compromise on this point. Choice must come with responsibility. The “choice” is in whether to engage in sex, with its attendant risk of conception. If you accept the risk, you’re responsible for the consequences, both the woman and the man. I am all for men sharing that responsibility, but ONLY if they also have a say in the choice. In the case of significant risk to the life of the mother (which almost never is the case today, in this country), or where the woman had no choice in whether to engage in sex or not, the choice to abort a pregnancy should be available, and solely the decision of the woman. It all comes back to my first belief, that of personal responsibility for your own actions.
3) Here, I’m more inclined to go by the letter of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall make no laws establishing or outlawing a religion. I do not believe it means that all references to God must be exercised from all things “governmental.” I do agree, however, that government must view all religions equally. This is why I have no problem with the images on the Supreme Court buildings, which depict Moses as well as other religious lawgivers. I likewise have no problem with the Ten Commandments being in the atrium of that courthouse in Alabama. I also don’t have a problem with the five explicit uses of the word “God” (as well as several other references to a divine being) inside the Jefferson Memorial, a Federally maintained building.
4) I agree with the first part, but disagree with enumerating specifics. It should simply read, “Freedom and rights should apply to all equally.” That also means that a specific group should not get special laws in their name. I would never include such a category as “sexual preference” as this is too broad. Sexual preference includes such activities as pedophilia, bestiality, and incest, and not just homosexual behavior.
5) A flowery and sophisticated-sounding phrase, but dead wrong on I’m afraid. This is in direct conflict with your first point. Our government’s mandate is to preserve our basic rights, and to insure equal protection for all…period. A democracy is, in its most basic form, the rule of the majority. Our Constitution is there to insure that the majority does not deny the minority their voice or basic rights under that Constitution.
6) We’re pretty close on this one, but I would substitute the word “steward” for the term “enjoy and protect.” Our natural resources are just that, resources. Some we use for recreation, some for commerce, and others for industry. As stewards, it is our job to insure those resources are managed and used in such a way that they give the most benefit to our country, both now and in the future. Sometimes that involves protecting aspects of it, sometimes in involves careful and deliberate use of it.
7) Spot on, my friend. However, after asking those questions, those that make sense should be supported.
Of course, we never even touched on non-domestic issues, like foreign policy or trade, but perhaps that is best left for another debate. In the mean time, I would suggest that the current crop of liberal politicians, particularly the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls, have come nowhere as close as you to articulating what they stand for.
-
Well said Sabre! such basic common sense.. ever think of running for office? :)
Sqrl
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I took a straw poll in my house and its 100-0
:cool:
Yikes!!! I'm votin Democrat this time.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
that's because bible scriptures are ignorant.... just read them.. they speak for them selves.
I'm sorry that you see it that way.