Just know, prejudices don't fly with me.
Amen, Bubbagump.
The irony of being lumped together and judged with "fundamentalists", "right-wingers", The Selfish and The Hateful by those marching under the banner of Tolerance and Compassion doesn't escape me.
This started out as a good conversation though. Have you seen those 3d maps of the voting trends? I'll dig up a link maybe tomorrow, if you haven't given up on this by then.
There's a lot to be learned here about ourselves and each other. If we could keep things to our own perceptions rather than blanket statements of Truth and Reality, it could still work.
I remain interested in the dialogue - with or without the smilies.
This argument always gets me. The contradictions with the abortion issue are the same reasons that democrats don’t have control of any of our government entities.
Democrats are for sucking a living person with nerves (with which to feel pain) out of a woman’s womb using a high power suction device causing tremendous pain and death to the child.
Democrats are against properly spanking a child when the child needs it. Such as smacking the childs hand when it nearly touches a hot stove. Or, spanking the child for striking a sibling. Perhaps the child should touch the hot stove and suffer third degree burns then take a “time out” to reflect on the error of his/her ways.
Democrats are against killing a grown person who cuts another person to pieces using a small utility knife (or big knife for that matter). Note: in neither case was a gun necessary to kill.
I could go on but I believe you already see the contradictions. This is “par for the course” IMO
| Quote (Guest @ Nov. 08 2004,18:38) |
| I could go on but I believe you already see the contradictions. This is "par for the course" IMO |
If truth is truley what you seek, may I suggest a wonderful book known simply as "The Bible".
I’ve read it. So what?
| Quote (Guest @ Nov. 08 2004,21:33) |
| I've read it. So what? |
Than your search is over. You may now change your name to "I found the Truth".
| Quote (Guest @ Nov. 08 2004,18:38) |
| Democrats are for sucking a living person with nerves (with which to feel pain) out of a woman's womb using a high power suction device causing tremendous pain and death to the child. Democrats are against properly spanking a child when the child needs it. Such as smacking the childs hand when it nearly touches a hot stove. Or, spanking the child for striking a sibling. Perhaps the child should touch the hot stove and suffer third degree burns then take a "time out" to reflect on the error of his/her ways. Democrats are against killing a grown person who cuts another person to pieces using a small utility knife (or big knife for that matter). Note: in neither case was a gun necessary to kill. |
Let's start with the first paragraph.
WRONG, many democrats despise the very thought of abortion. However, it's not about that. It's about the right's of an individual at this point. Whether or not a person is for or against it morally, is seperate from the individual rights of a woman and her body.
Second paragraph. Many democrats use physical means to disipline their children. There's a fine line between disipline and child abuse. And before you go making general statements about democrats I would say (some) or (most) if your not entirly shure it's (all). Anyway before the present laws were passed there was alot of actual abuse being done to children without recourse. As with anything it can be taken to extreems and exploited to go against it's original purpose.
As for the third paragraph.
So they are against killing, this is a bad thing?
I have spoken. I.
Wow…It’s amazing on someone like Truthseeker and Still4given can have such myopic views and accuse others of having such.
When did being pro-choice meant seeing abortion as a casual habit? For a guy to declare any assumptions about what a woman thinks or goes through during an abortion given that it is likely painful mentally as well as physically to the woman having seems ODD.
What pro-lifers don’t seem to understand is that pro-choice is ABOUT choice. Yes…there are sick people who treat it as a casual contraceptive…there are twisted people in the world…go figure.
It’s interesting that the majority of the neo-conservatives who is all obsessed about murder condones capital punishment and demands no limitation on gun ordinances. Not to judge all christians…but I find it disturbing for a group of people who wish to profess love and morality would be so choosy about compromising rights and believing in eye for eye tooth for a tooth. With that logic, the only difference between “this type of christian” and a secular is person is that one belongs in a cult and morality has nothing to do with it.
Truthseeker’s generalizations about democrats or anyone says it all about his intelligence.
Funny how a neo conservative screams PROPAGANDA with their own brand of PROPAGANDA.
America is deeply divided indeed…the trouble is…there really is no real definitive differences between the two…just the deluded idea of it all because one believes the other is conspiring.
Sad.
| Quote (Bubbagump @ Nov. 08 2004,16:04) | ||
As if he had a clue how to fix any of that. I can tell you the secret to putting food on the table. Go to work every day and do the job you were hired to do. It works, not matter who the president is. It irks me to hear folks dub themselves as moral |
What irks me is to see seemingly intelligent folks, dubbing immoral behavior as normal and valid, simply because it’s fashionable, or widespread. If that statement was meant for me, you are wrong. I am simply pointing out immoral behavior.
I usually keep my cards close to my chest as far as my personal beliefs on any forum because it is no ones buisness publically and I am not here to proselytize, but you got me this time.
I try to keep my cards on the table.
I should have known better. I should always know better than try to have an amongst those who would rather judge than discuss the issue. I postulate that population densities is a factor in the forming of ones values and how one voted in this past election. That's all I care to discuss. I don't care to pass judgement on whole populations of people. I don't care to discuss the morality of abortion. Just know, prejudices don't fly with me.
Hold on Bubba,
You brought up the abortion issue, not me. I simply asked you to clarify what you meant. In the end, you admitted to having suggested that abortion is used for birth control in urban areas. Therefore affecting how those folks might vote.
Wow...It's amazing on someone like Truthseeker and Still4given can have such myopic views and accuse others of having such.
Pronunciation: (mI-op'ik, -O'pik), [key]
—adj.
1. Ophthalm.pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.
Doesn’t your stating this place you in such a bracket?
When did being pro-choice meant seeing abortion as a casual habit?
Since the day they legalized it ASAICS
What pro-lifers don't seem to understand is that pro-choice is ABOUT choice. Yes..there are sick people who treat it as a casual contraceptive..there are twisted people in the world..go figure.
What is this Choice about? Answer; killing unborn children. Let's not lose sight of that.
Not to judge all christians..but I find it disturbing for a group of people who wish to profess love and morality would be so choosy about compromising rights and believing in eye for eye tooth for a tooth.
That's Old Testament. New Testament says; "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you". Not the same thing. And whose rights are being compromised?
Face it. Humans don’t have the “right” to kill other humans, no matter how unconvinced they may feel.
This isn’t about choice, it’s about life and death.
| Quote (Guest @ Nov. 08 2004,18:38) |
| This argument always gets me. The contradictions with the abortion issue are the same reasons that democrats don't have control of any of our government entities. Democrats are for sucking a living person with nerves (with which to feel pain) out of a woman's womb using a high power suction device causing tremendous pain and death to the child. Democrats are against properly spanking a child when the child needs it. Such as smacking the childs hand when it nearly touches a hot stove. Or, spanking the child for striking a sibling. Perhaps the child should touch the hot stove and suffer third degree burns then take a "time out" to reflect on the error of his/her ways. Democrats are against killing a grown person who cuts another person to pieces using a small utility knife (or big knife for that matter). Note: in neither case was a gun necessary to kill. I could go on but I believe you already see the contradictions. This is "par for the course" IMO Pronunciation: (mI-op'ik, -O'pik), [key] —adj. 1. Ophthalm.pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted. 2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted. 3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded. Doesn’t your stating this place you in such a bracket? |
No. Because unlike YOU specifically...I don't make blanket generalizations about people based on their politics. #### are you even certain that people are strictly republican and strictly democratic and further than that they all adhere to some ritualistic beliefs? You GOT to be kidding me right?
Having an opinion is one thing..making declarations as if your opinions are FACTS is another.
As far as abortion is concerned..Id like to know your abortion experiences as a choice since you seem to the EXPERT on the subject and all knowledgeable about the world...better yet...lets hear your experiences of being a woman...this oughta be good.
You brought up the abortion issue, not me. I simply asked you to clarify what you meant. In the end, you admitted to having suggested that abortion is used for birth control in urban areas. Therefore affecting how those folks might vote.
What I cannot get my head around is how in the world you took that as an endorsement or condonement of abortion. I am not suggesting, I am flat out saying that abortion, be it in urban areas or not, is indeed used as a birth control method. I never said any one should get one. You then took this observation and almost accused me of encouraging and condoning the practice. You asked if I thought those in urban areas "should" get abortions to keep the kids down. I never said they should, I said they do. Just because I say people do take crack and the incidence is probably higher in urban areas doesn't mean I think people in the city should take crack. Two totally different things.
Then you confused two things. I said in highly populated areas a the higher cost of having and raising a child may in turn cause people to have different attitudes toward birth control. They may consider abortion as a necessary evil as a last course of action should they get into trouble. I am not saying that is a good thing. This is just my guess as to one of the enviromental factors that would cause opinions in cities to differ from those in the burbs are country. How that is a judgement on the morality of abortion or is a condonemnt of abortion, I don't get. It is the same as saying murder rates are higher in the city due to the close proximity of living quarters. That does not mean I think people should go shoot one another. Read what I said and not what you want to believe I said. You connected dots that were on different pages and then started judging people on your misunderstanding of what they said and meant. Even after several clarifications you did not carefully read and jumped to conclusions. That is what I take issue with.
What I cannot get my head around is how in the world you took that as an endorsement or condonement of abortion. I am not suggesting, I am flat out saying that abortion, be it in urban areas or not, is indeed used as a birth control method. I never said any one should get one. You then took this observation and almost accused me of encouraging and condoning the practice. You asked if I thought those in urban areas "should" get abortions to keep the kids down. I never said they should, I said they do. Just because I say people do take crack and the incidence is probably higher in urban areas doesn't mean I think people in the city should take crack. Two totally different things.
Then you confused two things. I said in highly populated areas a the higher cost of having and raising a child may in turn cause people to have different attitudes toward birth control. They may consider abortion as a necessary evil as a last course of action should they get into trouble. I am not saying that is a good thing. This is just my guess as to one of the enviromental factors that would cause opinions in cities to differ from those in the burbs are country. How that is a judgement on the morality of abortion or is a condonemnt of abortion, I don't get. It is the same as saying murder rates are higher in the city due to the close proximity of living quarters. That does not mean I think people should go shoot one another. Read what I said and not what you want to believe I said. You connected dots that were on different pages and then started judging people on your misunderstanding of what they said and meant. Even after several clarifications you did not carefully read and jumped to conclusions. That is what I take issue with.
| Quote (aspiringWanderer @ Nov. 09 2004,14:11) | ||
No. Because unlike YOU specifically...I don't make blanket generalizations about people based on their politics. #### are you even certain that people are strictly republican and strictly democratic and further than that they all adhere to some ritualistic beliefs? You GOT to be kidding me right? Having an opinion is one thing..making declarations as if your opinions are FACTS is another. As far as abortion is concerned..Id like to know your abortion experiences as a choice since you seem to the EXPERT on the subject and all knowledgeable about the world...better yet...lets hear your experiences of being a woman...this oughta be good. |
I have not once, throughout this entire thread, made any statements about people's politics. So I have no idea what you are accusing me of.
As far as abortion is concerned..Id like to know your abortion experiences as a choice since you seem to the EXPERT on the subject and all knowledgeable about the world...better yet...lets hear your experiences of being a woman...this oughta be good.
That's the goofiest statement I've ever heard. I can't even make sense of it. You're off the deep end.
You asked if I thought those in urban areas "should" get abortions to keep the kids down
No I didn't!
You said;
A religion that shuns abortion and values marriage as a procreation tool is going to fly much more in the country side where the religion matches what people live every day. In the city, it doesn't seem to make sense. Avoiding having 50 kids in the city makes sense. You have no place to put them and the cost of living is higher.
to which I said;
I hope I am not understanding you to say that abortion should be more popular in the city because it keeps the number of "kids" down. Do you see abortion as a viable method of birth control? How about self control?
I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a question.
Then you confused two things. I said in highly populated areas a the higher cost of having and raising a child may in turn cause people to have different attitudes toward birth control. They may consider abortion as a necessary evil as a last course of action should they get into trouble. I am not saying that is a good thing. This is just my guess as to one of the enviromental factors that would cause opinions in cities to differ from those in the burbs are country. How that is a judgement on the morality of abortion or is a condonemnt of abortion, I don't get. It is the same as saying murder rates are higher in the city due to the close proximity of living quarters. That does not mean I think people should go shoot one another. Read what I said and not what you want to believe I said. You connected dots that were on different pages and then started judging people on your misunderstanding of what they said and meant. Even after several clarifications you did not carefully read and jumped to conclusions. That is what I take issue with.
Show me where I confused two things. I'm not judging people. I'm stating my opinions of how the moral decline of this country as fallen so far, that good folks can talk about killing and unborn child and call it birth control, or a choice. I have not accused anyone here of anything. If someone here feels that I have, then it is their own guilty conscience talking. I have only questioned things that have been said and tried to make a case for preserving the live of the innocent. If folks don't want to hear opposing views to their own then they shouldn't post on open forums.
Bubba,
All of my responses were not made to you. I have tried to accurately quote the things I have responded to. I new this would be a hot issue and part of me wishes that I had stayed out of this place. I'd shut up, but I think some folks need to be reminded that the "choice" in this case is talking about death. Some folks still refuse to accept that.
No I didn't!
You said;
A religion that shuns abortion and values marriage as a procreation tool is going to fly much more in the country side where the religion matches what people live every day. In the city, it doesn't seem to make sense. Avoiding having 50 kids in the city makes sense. You have no place to put them and the cost of living is higher.
to which I said;
I hope I am not understanding you to say that abortion should be more popular in the city because it keeps the number of "kids" down. Do you see abortion as a viable method of birth control? How about self control?
I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked you a question.
Then you confused two things. I said in highly populated areas a the higher cost of having and raising a child may in turn cause people to have different attitudes toward birth control. They may consider abortion as a necessary evil as a last course of action should they get into trouble. I am not saying that is a good thing. This is just my guess as to one of the enviromental factors that would cause opinions in cities to differ from those in the burbs are country. How that is a judgement on the morality of abortion or is a condonemnt of abortion, I don't get. It is the same as saying murder rates are higher in the city due to the close proximity of living quarters. That does not mean I think people should go shoot one another. Read what I said and not what you want to believe I said. You connected dots that were on different pages and then started judging people on your misunderstanding of what they said and meant. Even after several clarifications you did not carefully read and jumped to conclusions. That is what I take issue with.
Show me where I confused two things. I'm not judging people. I'm stating my opinions of how the moral decline of this country as fallen so far, that good folks can talk about killing and unborn child and call it birth control, or a choice. I have not accused anyone here of anything. If someone here feels that I have, then it is their own guilty conscience talking. I have only questioned things that have been said and tried to make a case for preserving the live of the innocent. If folks don't want to hear opposing views to their own then they shouldn't post on open forums.
Bubba,
All of my responses were not made to you. I have tried to accurately quote the things I have responded to. I new this would be a hot issue and part of me wishes that I had stayed out of this place. I'd shut up, but I think some folks need to be reminded that the "choice" in this case is talking about death. Some folks still refuse to accept that.
| Quote (still4given @ Nov. 09 2004,15:49) |
You seem to have some sort of authority of the abortion issue. It's a choice which you don't have to deal with in your lifetime anyways so I don't know what your spiel with this issue is. If a mother was to die if she gave birth..you think the government should determine who lives or dies?? What contradictions are you referring to? Based on solely your opinion of the matter which you will never experience anyways..you determined that a woman shouldnt have a choice in the matter...that itself makes no sense to me.
You want to read goofy statements?
------
Democrats are for sucking a living person with nerves (with which to feel pain) out of a woman's womb using a high power suction device causing tremendous pain and death to the child.
----
Abortion isnt pretty..but its about choice..not a lifestyle.
----
Democrats are against properly spanking a child when the child needs it. Such as smacking the childs hand when it nearly touches a hot stove. Or, spanking the child for striking a sibling. Perhaps the child should touch the hot stove and suffer third degree burns then take a "time out" to reflect on the error of his/her ways.
----
So all democrats exclusively never discipline their kids. Wow.
----
Democrats are against killing a grown person who cuts another person to pieces using a small utility knife (or big knife for that matter). Note: in neither case was a gun necessary to kill.
------
Not all democrats are opposed to capital punishment. Even some democratic states practice capital punishment...and [gasp] some democrats are into eye for an eye tooth for a tooth.
------
I could go on but I believe you already see the contradictions. This is "par for the course" IMO
-----
Please don't. I think we had enough "propaganda".
I'm not accusing of anything..I just think youre full of sh*t with your idiotic generalizations.
Let me ask you this...are *all* republicans considered moral and yet in favor of no restrictions on guns? If so, why does a moral human being need automatic weapons? Hunting accuracy?
Let's explore *that* contradiction.
You seem to have some sort of authority of the abortion issue. It's a choice which you don't have to deal with in your lifetime anyways so I don't know what your spiel with this issue is.
You have no idea what choices I've had to make in my lifetime. That has nothing to do with this issue.
You want to read goofy statements?
No
I'm not accusing of anything..I just think youre full of sh*t with your idiotic generalizations
Like I said, you're off the deep end.
Let me ask you this...are *all* republicans considered moral and yet in favor of no restrictions on guns?
I couldn't say for sure, but instinct tells me no.
If so, why does a moral human being need automatic weapons? Hunting accuracy?
I couldn't tell you, I've never owned a gun. Have you?
Let's explore *that* contradiction.
Huh?
You have no idea what choices I've had to make in my lifetime. That has nothing to do with this issue.
You want to read goofy statements?
No
I'm not accusing of anything..I just think youre full of sh*t with your idiotic generalizations
Like I said, you're off the deep end.
Let me ask you this...are *all* republicans considered moral and yet in favor of no restrictions on guns?
I couldn't say for sure, but instinct tells me no.
If so, why does a moral human being need automatic weapons? Hunting accuracy?
I couldn't tell you, I've never owned a gun. Have you?
Let's explore *that* contradiction.
Huh?
You have no idea what choices I’ve had to make in my lifetime. That has nothing to do with this issue.
-------
And you know the choices of others particularly democrats. Imagine that.
-----
“Like I said, you’re off the deep end.”
-----
Nah…just calling your whiny senseless bullshit.
—
“Huh?”
—
Yea I figured youd like to avoid that.
Gun + God + Capital Punishment = Moral
First, I’m sorry I have to take this thread back a page but I need to answer.
Second, the statements I made are fact based on the democrats platform not individual beliefs. I never said all, many or otherwise. You dumb asses can’t see the forest for the trees.
Mr. (Ms. or Mrs.) I, you said regarding the statement I made about killing murderers as democrats being against killing. The premise of the Pro-life stance is that abortion is murder. That being said, killing is killing. Choice is fine as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. Abortion does just that. Can you explain why it is ok to murder an unborn child that is completely innocent vs. not killing a murderer guilty of the worst possible act?
If you believe abortion is wrong, why do you believe that way? Because deep down you know it’s murder. Otherwise what’s the problem with it?
To justify murder for personal gain, (ie. not having to raise an unwanted child) is wrong. Yet you support abortion and oppose the war in Iraq. Are you for murder or opposed to it?
The contradictions keep going. Now if you are pro choice and pro death penalty atleast you’d be consistent. If you were pro life and against the death penalty you would also be consistent.
Just a thought. BTW neither side is consitent!
Truthseeker
What if the circumstances were if the unborn child would kill the mother…do you support that the mother has no say?
Where do you draw the line?
You are incredibly stupid to believe that just because someone is prochoice that they take abortion lightly…I think youre more obsessed to believe that all who have to choose abortions for whatever right reasons they believe that it won’t affect them.
You say neither side is consistent…so WTF are you rambling about then beside the obvious?
I never said I was pro life, I just don’t like democrats. It is fun to make silly comments to get a rise out of simple people. 
Since someone brought up the issue on guns. The issue is not what type of gun you need for hunting. Last time I checked the right to hunt is not provided for in the constitution. The right to bear arms is. I own guns to protect my family from whatever group might try to impose their will on me. If five thugs invade my home I’d rather have an Uzi that shoots 950 rounds per minute than a double barrel shot gun, where I might get off two to four rounds a minute.
I don’t hunt because I don’t see the joy in it. This is just another issue that democrats (as an organization) don’t understand. We all have the right to defend ourselves. The gun is the great equalizer. It is also a very harmful tool in the wrong hands. Hence the oversimplistic phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It’s the truth. You may recall the guy in Japan that went psyco using a samari sword in the subway and killed a bunch of people. One person with a gun would have ended that alot sooner, with less casualties. If someone is so #### bent on believing guns are evil then that, my shortsighted friend is a “myopic” view.
Since someone brought up the issue on guns. The issue is not what type of gun you need for hunting. Last time I checked the right to hunt is not provided for in the constitution. The right to bear arms is.
Democrats what to ban guns that easily kill police, family members & people in general. We do NOT want to ban guns in general, nor could.
The Second Admendment is misuderstood & mis-interpreted by gun owners. This article pretty much sums up the confusion - Gun Control.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
The Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] is that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
On issues that the right supports, it's happy to stretch the meaning of the constitution but on issues that it doesn't like, it want to tighten them.
In short, the constitution does NOT explicitly give you a right to own an Uzi.
Democrats what to ban guns that easily kill police, family members & people in general. We do NOT want to ban guns in general, nor could.
The Second Admendment is misuderstood & mis-interpreted by gun owners. This article pretty much sums up the confusion - Gun Control.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
The Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] is that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
On issues that the right supports, it's happy to stretch the meaning of the constitution but on issues that it doesn't like, it want to tighten them.
In short, the constitution does NOT explicitly give you a right to own an Uzi.